9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff is not the assignee of the debt and dismissed the suit. It appears that Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. made out a bill dated September 21. 1956 showing that Kays Constructions Co. was a Debtor of Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. for the price of the goods amounting to ₹ 7651/9/-. The following endorsements appear on the bill: Please make the payment of this bill to Messrs. Parkash Chand Kishan Lall: 55 Cross Street, Calcutta. It may please be treated as irrevocable For the Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. P. D. Rohmetra Managing Director. Accepted. For Kays Construction Co. Sd/- Illegible 22-9-56 . 2. Subsequently by letter dated April 18, 1957 the plaintiff demanded from Kays Construction Co. payment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay the amount of the bill to the plaintiff. The debtor could not thereafter discharge the debt by making payment to the original creditor Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. The debtor could discharge the debt only by making payment to the plaintiff. Reading the endorsement made by Rohmetra and Co. Ltd. in the light of the subsequent acceptance by the debtor we are satisfied that the endorsement amounted to an assignment and/or transfer of the debt. The original creditor intended to assign the amount of the debt by the endorsement and the words of the endorsement were so understood by the debtor when the debtor accepted the bill. The point is made plainer when the subsequent correspondence is looked at. The correspondence shows that the endorsement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to collect the money on his own behalf but was to collect it on behalf of the original creditor. The wording of the endorsement in question before us is materially different. By this endorsement the original creditor did not direct the debtor to pay the amount of the debt to the plaintiff on behalf of the original creditor. There was an unconditional order by the original creditor to the debtor to pay the amount of the bill to the plaintiff coupled with the direction that the order would be irrevocable. The debtor accepted this order and promised to pay the debt to the plaintiff. The effect of the endorsement was that thenceforth only the plaintiff was entitled to realise the debt. Though the instrument is in form a pay order the intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is an engagement to pay the amount of the b(sic) The acceptance was not made solely with t(sic) object of supplying evidence of the debt. 6. No other point has been argued before us. The amount of the debt is admitted. T(sic) assignment of the debt in favour of the plaintiff (sic) sufficiently proved. It must follow, therefore, th(sic) the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as claimed (sic) the plaint We pass the following order. 7. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge i(sic) set aside. There will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff Prokash Chandra Kishenlal against (sic) defendant Kays Construction Co. for the sum of ₹ 7,651/9/- with interim interest at the rate of 6% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
