Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1961 (4) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bank. This account was secured by mortgage of immovable property as the partition of the country, Messrs Dhani Ram, Sons moved to Delhi and the Bank also moved amount due to it from Messrs. Dhani Ram Sons by a notice Exhibit D 2 dated the 24th July, 1948 and by another notice Exhibit D 3 dated 16th April, 1953. In Exhibit D 3 the last paragraph is in these terms. I am further directed to call upon you to please arrange to take delivery of the shares mentioned above against payment of their value in case at Delhi Office of my client within two weeks from the receipt of this notice, failing which my client will be free to sell them away at any price available in the market by private or public sale at your risks and cost. It seem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of which the goods were pledged, the pawnee may bring a suit against the pawner upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledged as a collateral security; or he may sell the thing pledged, on giving the pawner reasonable notice of the sale. If the proceeds of such sale are less than the mount due in respect of the debt or promise, the pawner is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount so due, the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawner. He further contends that the pledgee could not sell the shares to itself and such a sale would be void in law. Therefore the contention is that the pledger is still the owner of the shares, they having not been legally disposed of. (4) I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... void and did not pass any title to the pledgee and therefore the Bank was directed to replace the paper, which it had improperly sold. On an appeal by the Bank, the matter was heard by a Full Bench presided over by the Chief Justice Petheram. Mr. Justice Tottenham, who delivered the leading judgment observed as under (at pages 327, 328): Upon this state of facts the question arises, whether assuming that the securities remained in the hands of the defendants after they had taken them over in the books, subject to the same rights as before the disposal of them some few days after the defendants by sale and exchange, was a conversion of them for which they are liable to pay damages, or whether they were in the position of trustees for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... performing the conditions, he is guilty of wrongful conversion, and that the measure of damages is the value of the chattels at the time of conversion less the amount for which it was pledged. (6) This decision was affirmed by the Privy Council and it is reported in Neckram Dobey v. Bank of Bengal, ILR 19 Cal 322. At page 333 of the report, their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as under: Their Lordships are of opinion that this decision should be affirmed. The sales by the Bank to itself, thought unauthorised, did not put an end to the contract of pledge, so as to entitle the plaintiff to have back the Government notes, without payment of the loans of which they were security, and until the delivery of the account on the 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that is a matter which will arise at the final accounting. In this suit the only question that requires determination is whether the Bank is the owner of the shares, and on a true view of the matter the Bank must be held to be the legal owner of the shares, and once that is held then defendant No. 2 could not refuse to transfer the shares to the Bank. (7) The only other question that was agitated in the Courts below and which has also been argued before me is about limitation. The Court below have held the suit to be within time and applied Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act. But as I look at the matter, I do not see how the question of limitation arises at all. So far as the appellant is concerned, the shares were in the possessi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates