BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri D.D. Topno, Additional Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Dhanbad in Money Suit No. 269/2 of 1974/78 on the 8th of Sept., 1979, whereby and whereunder the Court below decreed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) In view of the points involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail which are also otherwise not much in dispute. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit stating therein that defendant No. 1 respondent No. 2 had a current account with the plaintiff and used to enjoy over-draft facility in the account. During the operation of the said account on various occasions it appears that defendant No. 1 drew advances against the cheques deposited in course of collection. On or about 16-101971 defendant No. 1 deposited cheque No. 043455 dated 16-10-1971 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- drawn by M/s. H. Roy and Co. in favour of defendant No. 1 for collection and defendant No. 1 drew Rs. 15,000/- by cheque No. 327298 dated 16-10-1971 as advance against the aforesaid cheque sent for collection. On or about 19-10-1971 when the said cheque was presented by the plaintiff to Bank of Baroda, Dhanbad for payment, the same was dishonoured on the ground stated in the memo. In the said account of defendant No. 1, it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 16,899.73 paise remained overdrawn as on 19-10-1971. Defendant No. 1 deposited Rs. 7,000/- on 2310-1971. The colliery of defendant No. 1 vested absolutely in the Central Government with effect from 1-5-1972. The plaintiff sent the dishonoured cheque to the Custodian General of the management for reimbursement of the amount but to no effect. After giving credit to defendant No. 1, still a sum of Rs. 12,561.39 paise inclusive interest remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for which sum, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed written statement, inter alia, challenging the jurisdiction of civil Court to try the suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff had been pursuing twofold remedies as it had also filed a claim petition before the Commissioner of Payments constituted under the provisions of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be called as "the Nationalisation Act"). Defendant No. 1 had further stated that the cheque which was dishonoured had not been sent to defendant No. 1 and had it been so sent, defendant No. 1 could have realised the said amount from the party. Defendant No. 2 had also filed a separate written statement and the short point which was stated therein was that it was not liable to pay any amount to the defendant as the transaction in question only took place prior to the appointed date within the meaning of the Act, i.e. 1-5-1972.