9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of equitable assignment based on power of attorney and bill endorsement. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding an equitable assignment of funds due under a bill. The appellant Bank had a financing arrangement with Malhotra, a contractor, and held an irrevocable power of attorney dated July 13, 1946. The power of attorney authorized the Bank to receive payments under contracts and appropriate them towards loan repayment. Malhotra endorsed a bill to the Bank on July 19, 1948, directing payment to the Bank. The central issue was whether the power of attorney and bill endorsement constituted an equitable assignment of funds in favor of the Bank. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles governing equitable assignments. Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted that an agreement between a debtor and creditor to pay from a specific fund creates a valid equitable charge on that fund. The Court emphasized that the power of attorney and bill endorsement indicated an agreement between the parties for payment out of a specific fund, constituting an equitable assignment for security. The Court noted the distinction between a pay order and an assignment. While a pay order is revocable and confers no interest in the fund, an assignment creates an irrevocable interest. In this case, the bill endorsement, read in conjunction with the power of attorney, created an interest in a specific fund and was deemed irrevocable, establishing a valid equitable assignment in favor of the Bank. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the decree in favor of the Bank. The legal representatives of the party contesting the assignment were directed to bear the costs of the appeal and previous court proceedings. The judgment clarified the validity of equitable assignments based on power of attorney and bill endorsements, emphasizing the irrevocable nature of such arrangements for securing loan repayments in commercial transactions.
|
