9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidation in 1932 and the Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd., and Lala Banwasi Lal were appointed joint liquidators; the liquidation was under the supervision of Court. An application was made by the Lyallpur Bank, Ltd., in liquidation on the 22nd May 1933, under Section 186 of the Indian Companies Act for a payment order. It was signed by Banwasi Lal and one Daulat Ram, who did not describe himself, but in the evidence it transpired that he was the manager of the Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Three main objections to the order passed by the District Judge have been raised before me: firstly, that the application on which the payment order has been made was not made by persons competent to make an application of this description; secondly, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment of Daulat Ram there can be no question of delegation in the sense in which delegation of duties is prohibited by law. A bank can function only through its directors, agents or representatives and if it can be found that Daulat Ram was authorised either by power of attorney or the articles of association or otherwise to act in this matter on behalf of the Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd., he would be competent to present the application. If the proposition is correct that by its memorandum of association the Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd., is entitled to act as a liquidator, then the work of liquidation would fall within the ordinary function of the bank and the Manager of the bank by virtue of the articles of association and the power o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication was admittedly made when the normal period for instituting a suit for the recovery of the debt due under a promissory note had expired, but in the application the liquidators claimed exemption by virtue of a document dated the 28th February 1931, signed by Lala Jairam Das. By this document he sold certain immovable property to the bank for Rs. 16,000 and directed the bank to credit the sum of Rs. 16,000 to the promissory note account. The appellant contends that the document really purports to transfer the property in favour of the Bank but is not registered. Assuming that the document requires registration the liquidators do not rely upon it in order to establish their title to the immovable property sold to the bank; on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, Lala Jairam Das got the credit of Rs. 16,000 made in his promissory note account. I am also of opinion that the receipt does amount to an acknowledgment of liability under the promissory note for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. It is not necessary that the actual amount due should be mentioned so long as there is an acknowledgment of liability under the promissory note in writing signed by the debtors. The conclusion of the learned District Judge on this matter also is correct. The question of presentment does not arise. In the first instance it has been held as a matter of fact on the evidence which has been believed by the learned District Judge that the document was presented to Lala Jairam Das for payment. Beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
