01-12-2012, 03:45 PM
BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BHARAT BARREL.pdf (Size: 108.3 KB / Downloads: 35)
The defendant-respondent is admitted to have executed a Promissory Note for a sum of Rs.6.20.000/- on
11.10.1961 agreeing to pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff on demand. On his failure to repay the
amount borrowed, the appellant served a legal notice calling upon the defendant-respondent for making the
payment of the amount borrowed. Neither the amount was paid nor the notice was replied with the result that
the appellant-plaintiff was forced to file a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure in the
original side of the High Court of Calcutta on 10.8.1962. The respondent was granted leave to defend the suit
by the learned trial Judge. In the written statement filed, the respondent alleged that the Promissory Note had
not been executed "for the value received" as mentioned therein but was executed by way of collateral
security. It was further submitted that in August 1961 the respondent had offered to import 10160 metric tones
of steel drum sheets from the appellant which was accepted on 15.9.1961 with the condition that the goods
should be shipped on or before 30.11.1961 before the expiry of the appellantt's import licence. The
Promissory Note was stated to have thus been executed under such circumstances which were, in fact,
intended to be collateral security. Due to freezing of lakes the contract of import of steel drum sheets could
not be performed, the same was cancelled with the appellant which absolved the defendant-respondent from
any liability arising out of and in relation to the document executed by him. The suit was dismissed by the
learned trial Judge of the High Court holding that as evidence led by the plaintiff and the defendant was not
believable, the suit could not be decreed as according to the learned judge, the appellant filed an appeal before
the Division Bench of the High Court. In view of the important question of law involved being difficult to
answer, the Division Bench referred the entire appeal to a large Bench. By reason of the majority view, the
appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. Not satisfied
with the judgement of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellant.