J AND K BANK LIMITED Vs. ABDUL SAMAD CHALOO
LAWS(J&K)-2006-12-1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 06,2006

J.ANDK.BANK LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL SAMAD CHALOO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS Civil First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1997 passed by District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, in the suit titled as abdul Samad Chaloo v, J and K Bank Limited, whereby and whereunder suit of the plaintiff came to be allowed, which shall be hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment.
(2.) IT is necessary to notice the facts of the case herein. Plaintiff respondent had opened a bank account with appellant defendant Bank at its Amira Kadal Branch and was being operated by him. Plaintiff was a partner of a firm which consisted of six partners and it was conducting business of Construction of roads and Buildings and had its business at Anantnag with Union of India through jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Office, anantnag. Jammu and Kashmir Bank through its Branch Manager, Anantnag Branch filed a suit for recovery against it. Appellant defendant Bank created a lien against the individual account of the plaintiff respondent which constrained the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of Rs. 19. 451/- 86p along with interest and costs.
(3.) APPELLANT defendant Bank appeared and filed written statement and contested the suit on the grounds that plaintiff had an individual account at Amirakadal Branch and it adjusted balance amount of the plalntiff against the amount which was due from the firm at Anantnag Branch. Further pleaded that they could create lien against the individual account of the plalntiff. The trial Court framed following issues on 16th march, 1988: (1) Whether the defendant Bank has a right of (sic) and set off against plalntiff account No. 4045 and is entitled to adjust the amount lying therein against the outstanding in plalntiff s account (as partner in some firm) with JK Bank, Anantnag ? OPD. (2) In case of issue No. 1 is replied in affirmative whether the defendant bank has exercised its (sic) of lein and set off in accordance with law ? (3) Whether the defendants prayer for freezing the suit account was refused by distt. Judge, Ang. If so what is its effect on suit ? OPP (4) Whether the plalntiff has no cause of action to maintain the suit ? OPD. (5) Whether proper Court fee has not been paid by the plalntiff ? OPD. (6) Relief?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.