{"id":201206,"date":"2003-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-19T09:28:55","modified_gmt":"2015-01-19T03:58:55","slug":"govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 21\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nA.S.NO.466 OF 1988\n\n1. Govindaraj & Co.\n\n2. R. Govindarajan                                      ..  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd.,\n   a registered Banking Company\n   having its Head Office at\n   Calicut, Kerala State\n   and a Branch at\n   Oppanakara Street\n   Coimbatore-641 009\n\n2. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd.,\n   a registered Banking Company\n   having its Head Office at\n   Calicut, Kerala State\n   and a branch at\n   Kandanesseri,\n   Trichur District\n   Kerala State\n\n3. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd.,\n   a registered Banking Company\n   having its Head Office at\n   Calicut, Kerala State\n   and a branch at Palghat\n   Marude Road\n   Palghat District\n   Kerala State                                 ..  Respondents\n\n\n        This appeal is preferred under Section  96  of  C.P.C.    against  the\ndecree  and  judgment  of  the  learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 30\n.9.1987 made in O.S.No.674 of 1980.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.N.Varadarajan\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.T.V.Sekar\n                for Mr.D.Soouza\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
M.  CHOCKALINGAM, J
\n        The first and second defendants are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned
\nSubordinate Judge, Coimbatore  granting  a  decree  in  favour  of  the  first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:
\n        The  first  defendant is a partnership firm and the defendants 2 and 3
\nare the partners of the first defendant firm.  On 5.7.1979  a  crossed  demand
\ndraft  for  a  sum  of  Rs.65,063\/-  in favour of the first defendant firm was
\nreceived by the plaintiff for clearance through Canara Bank, Headquarters Road
\nBranch, Coimbatore.  The Canara Bank received the  payment  and  endorsed  the
\nsame by  affixing  its  rubber  stamp.   The first defendant has withdrawn the
\namount from Canara Bank.  On 22.8.1979 ,  the  first  defendant  attempted  to
\nencash  another  Demand  Draft,  and  it was found that the demand draft was a
\nforged one and had been tampered with.  Canara Bank  Branch  Manager  of  Head
\nQuarters  Road  branch  telephoned  the  plaintiff’s branch Manager about this
\nincident and asked the plaintiff’s  Branch  Manager  to  scrutinise  the  suit
\ndemand draft  cleared  by the plaintiff.  On careful scrutiny, the plaintiff’s
\nBranch Manager suspected material alteration of the instrument.  It was  clear
\nthat  the  date,  the name of the payee, the amount of the draft, the names of
\nthe drawer and drawee had all been tampered with  and  materially  altered  by
\nsome chemical  process  in  an  ingenious manner.  A complaint has been lodged
\nwith the police on 25.8.1979.  After investigation, the second  defendant  was
\narrested and the police recovered Rs.31,00 0\/-.  The said amount has been paid
\nto the plaintiff.    The police were in search of others.  The first defendant
\nhad no title to the instrument.  The first defendant who had drawn the  amount
\nfrom  the  Canara  Bank is liable to pay back the amount, and the plaintiff is
\nentitled to recover the amount from the first defendant.  Out of  Rs.65,063\/-,
\nthe plaintiff  has  received through police Rs.31,000\/-.  The suit is filed to
\nrecover a sum of Rs.39001.18 with interest at 18% per annum from the  date  of
\nplaint till realisation.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  suit  was resisted by the the first and second defendants by
\nfiling a written statement with the following averments:\n<\/p>\n
        The first defendant company is not a partnership company.   The  third
\ndefendant is not a partner of the first defendant firm.  It is admitted by the
\nsecond  defendant  that  he  received  a Demand Draft in the name of the first
\ndefendant company for Rs.65,063\/-.  The said demand draft was also encashed by
\nthe Canara Bank from the plaintiff Bank and was given credit to in the account
\nof the first defendant Company.  The defendants 1 and 2 never had  a  hand  in
\nany manner  at  any time in the alleged forgery of the said demand draft.  The
\nsaid demand draft is not a forged one.  The plaintiff is bound to  prove  that
\nit  did  not  receive  the  advice  slip  from  the  drawer bank at least till
\n25.8.1979.   During  May,  1979,  one  Krishnakumar  along  with  broker  Sami
\napproached  the first defendant and he was introduced to the second defendant.
\nThe second defendant gave him the proforma invoice and informed  that  without
\nreceiving the  amount,  he  cannot  supply  the  materials.    Hence, the said
\nKrishnakumar issued a demand  draft  for  Rs.65,063\/-  and  it  was  sent  for
\ncollection.   Later,  the said Krishnakumar placed with the second defendant a
\nsecond order for the supply of electrical motors and pump sets for the  amount
\nof Rs.65000\/-  and  sent  a demand draft.  This demand draft was found to be a
\nforged one and a police complaint was given.  The police examined  the  second
\ndefend  ant  and  Krishnamoorthy  Mudaliar and they informed the police of the
\nfirst demand draft that was encashed.  Only on the information  given  by  the
\nsecond  defendant,  the  plaintiff  probed  into the matter and found that the
\nfirst demand draft was also materially altered.  The second defendant was  not
\narrested by  the  police.   Only Sasi was arrested and remanded by the police.
\nThe defendants 1 and 2 are not liable to  pay  any  interest  on  the  amounts
\nclaimed  as  there  was  no  agreement  to  pay any interest nor was there any
\nprivity of contract between them.    The  suit  is  bad  for  non  joinder  of
\nnecessary parties.  Hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The written statement filed by the fifth defendant was adopted by
\nthe fourth defendant.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The fifth defendant has filed a written  statement  alleging  that
\nthe  5th  defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit; that no relief can be
\nclaimed against them; that they are entitled to costs from  the  defendants  1
\nand  2  and  that  the  suit  has  got to be decreed as prayed for against the
\ndefendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed  as  many  as  five
\nissues and  one  additional  issue  and tried the suit.  After considering the
\nrival  submissions  and  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence,  the   learned
\nSubordinate  Judge  granted  a decree for a sum of Rs.34,063\/- with subsequent
\ninterest.  Aggrieved defendants 1 and 2 have brought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The subject matter of this appeal is the decree granted in  favour<\/p>\n
of the first respondent\/plaintiff directing the appellants\/ defendants 1 and 2
\nto  pay  to  the  plaintiff  a sum of Rs.34,063\/- with subsequent interest and
\nproportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Arguing for the appellants, the learned Counsel would submit  that
\nthe  trial  Court  has  not  considered  the  oral and documentary evidence in
\nentirety; that it is pertinent to note that the amount paid to the Canara Bank
\nunder the suit Demand Draft was due to the gross negligence  and  carelessness
\nof  the  plaintiff  Bank; that the defendants 1 and 2 are bonafide holders for
\nvalue; that it has to be noted that the original draft alleged  to  have  been
\nforged and materially altered has not been produced, and in the absence of the
\nsame,  the  suit  is  not maintainable; that Exs.A5 and A6 are inadmissible in
\nevidence, as the photographer who took  photos  of  the  same,  has  not  been
\nexamined  and the negatives also have not been produced; that it is not proved
\nby the plaintiff that the original draft was for Rs.16.50 and  the  payee  was
\none  Krishnalal  Bhuvandas;  that  in spite of notice, the application for the
\nissue of the draft has not been produced; that it was the  plaintiff  who  was
\nnegligent  and  careless  in  paying  the  amount;  that in any event both the
\nplaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 were victims of a fraud played by a third
\nparty and thus, the money paid by the plaintiff could not be  recovered  back;
\nthat  there  is  no  absolute  liability to refund the amount received under a
\ndraft found to be materially altered; that in any  event,  the  plaintiff  was
\nentitled  to sue and recover the amount only from the Canara Bank and not from
\nthe appellants; that the suit without impleading the Canara Bank  is  bad  for
\nnonjoinder  of a necessary party; that in spite of summons, the entire records
\nof the appellants which were seized by the police during  investigation,  have
\nnot  been  produced;  that  in view of the available evidence, the trial Court
\nought to have rejected the case of the plaintiff, and hence, the judgment  and
\ndecree of the lower Court have got to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  learned  Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
\nthat the trial Court only after careful scrutiny of the entire  evidence  came
\nto  the  conclusion that the defendants 1 and 2 were liable to answer the suit
\nclaim; that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, but  it  was
\nthe  appellants,  who  cleverly placed the Demand Draft for collection through
\ntheir Bank namely Canara Bank; that only  when  the  appellants  attempted  to
\nencash  another  forged  Demand Draft on 22.8.1979, there arose a necessity to
\nprobe into the transaction under the Demand  Draft  in  question;  that  after
\nenquiry,  it  was  found that the suit Demand Draft was materially altered and
\ntampered with; that the plaintiff has proved  the  suit  cla  im  by  adducing
\nsufficient  and  acceptable evidence both oral and documentary; that the lower
\nCourt was correct in holding that the appellants are not bonafide holders  for
\nvalue;  that  the  original Demand Draft could not be produced, since the same
\nwas in the hands of the police during investigation; that  the  plaintiff  has
\nproduced  copies  of  the  instrument;  that the nonproduction of the original
\nDraft would not in any way affect the  case  of  the  plaintiff;  that  it  is
\npertinent  to  note  that  the  appellants have well admitted in their written
\nstatement that the suit demand draft was found to be materially altered;  that
\nthe  lower  Court  was  right  in  decreeing the suit, and there is nothing to
\ninterfere with the impugned judgment, and hence, the  appeal  has  got  to  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Admittedly,  the second defendant is the proprietor of the first
\ndefendant concern dealing  in  engineering  goods  like  textile  machineries,
\nelectric motors, etc., and had an account with the Canara Bank at Headquarters
\nRoad, Coimbatore.    A  Demand  Draft purported to be in the name of the first
\ndefendant Company for Rs.65,063\/- dated 4.7.1979 bearing No.831718  and  drawn
\nby  the  Nedungadi  Bank, Trichur Kandassery Branch and drawn on the Nedungadi
\nBank, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore was  placed  with  the  first  defendant’s
\nBanker namely Canara Bank, Coimbatore for collection.  The said crossed Demand
\nDraft  was also encashed by the Bank of the first defendant from the plaintiff
\nBank and was given credit to in the account of the  first  defendant  Company,
\nand the amount borne by the said Demand Draft namely Rs.65,063\/- was withdrawn
\nby the  second  defendant  on  behalf of the first defendant.  Out of the said
\namount, the plaintiff realised a sum of Rs.31,000\/- from the defendants 1  and
\n2 through police.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   As seen above, the plaintiff Bank laid the said civil action for
\nthe recovery of the  balance  sum  of  Rs.34,063\/-  with  subsequent  interest
\nspecifically  alleging  that  on  careful  scrutiny, the said Demand Draft was
\nfound to be materially altered, unsupported by consideration and  hence  void,
\nand  the  said  amount  of  Rs.65,063\/- was paid to the first defendant’s Bank
\nunder a mistake of fact bonafide  and  without  the  knowledge  of  any  fraud
\ncommitted on the instrument, and thus, the defendants 1 and 2 who received the
\namount, had not the title and hence liable to return the same to the plaintiff
\nBank.   The  suit  was  resisted by the contesting defendants 1 and 2 that the
\nplaintiff has neither produced nor proved the instrument alleged to be tainted
\nwith invalidating factor namely forgery; that they had no hands in any  manner
\nat  any  time in the alleged forgery of the said instrument; that on 4 .7.1979
\none Krishnakumar has given the said Demand Draft towards the purchase  of  the
\nmachineries  pursuant  to  a  purchase  order  placed by him, and the same was
\nplaced in the hands of the first defendant’s Banker’s namely Canara  Bank  for
\nencashment;  that  without the connivance of the staff of the plaintiff namely
\nNedungadi Bank, the alleged commission of fraud and crime could not have  been
\ncommitted;  that  the second defendant was a bonafide holder in due course and
\nfor value of the said Demand Draft, and hence, the defendants 1 and 2 were not
\nliable to the plaintiff for the loss sustained by them on account of its gross
\nnegligence and carelessness.  In order to prove its case,  the  plaintiff  has
\nexamined P.Ws.1  to  3 and marked Exs.A1 to A12.  The defendants have examined
\nD.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B15.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The first contention raised by the appellants that the  plaintiff
\nhas  not  proved  the  Demand  Draft  for  Rs.65,063\/-  dated 4.7.1979 bearing
\nNo.831718 which is the  basis  for  the  suit,  as  a  forged  one  cannot  be
\ncountenanced in view of the candid admission made by the defendants 1 and 2 in
\ntheir written statement.  Paragraph 5 of the written statement reads as under:
\n“…But the 2nd defendant did not know that the said D\/D was a forged one till
\n25th August, 1979 when the plaintiff gave a criminal complaint to police…”
\nIn paragraph 6 of the written statement, it is stated as follows:
\n“…The  demand  draft  could  not have at all come into existence without the
\nstealthy co-operation of some one of  the  staff  of  the  Nedungadi  Bank  at
\nKandanasseri……   The  said  demand  draft  is  now  found to be materially
\naltered…”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 11 of the written statement, it is stated as under:
\n“…During investigation the 2nd defendant came to  know  that  Krishnakumar’s
\nreal name is Sasi.  Sasi admitted before the police that he materially altered
\nthe demand  draft  as  well  as  the  previous suit demand draft.  Only on the
\ninformation given by the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff probed into  the  matter
\nand found that the 1st suit D.D.  was also a materially altered.”
\nIn  view  of  all  the  above, it would not be difficult to hold that the suit
\nDemand Draft is a forged one as stated by the plaintiff’s side.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   It  was  further  contended  by  the  learned  Counsel  for  the
\nappellants  that  the  original  Demand Draft has not been produced before the
\ntrial Court; and that in the absence of the original, the suit to recover  the
\namount  on  the  basis  of  payment  made  under  the said Demand Draft is not
\nmaintainable.  It is true that the original of the said forged and  materially
\naltered Demand  Draft  was  not  produced.  But, only xerox copies of the said
\nDemand Draft were filed and marked as Exs.A5  and  A6.    From  the  available
\nevidence, it would be abundantly clear that when the said material alterations
\nand  forgery  were  found  out,  immediately  a  complaint  was  lodged by the
\nplaintiff Bank on 25.8.1979, and the original of the forged Demand  Draft  was
\nin the hands of the police.  The copy of the First Information Report has been
\nproduced as  Ex.A4.    The fact that pursuant to the said first information, a
\ncase was registered and was investigated, during which connected accused  were
\narrested is  not  disputed  by the appellants.  It is also not in dispute that
\nRs.31,000\/- was recovered by  the  police.    Under  such  circumstances,  the
\noriginal Demand Draft could not be produced before the trial Court.  Thus, the
\nplaintiff  was able to place before the Court below the true circumstances, in
\nwhich the original instrument could not be made available to the trial  Court.
\nIt  remains  to be stated that nowhere the defendants 1 and 2 have stated that
\nExs.A5 and A6 were not the xerox copies of the original Demand Draft.  On  the
\ncontrary,  all  the  contents found under Exs.A5 and A6 were well admitted not
\nonly in the course of the written statement filed by the defendants 1  and  2,
\nbut also  in  the  evidence of D.W.1.  In such case, the non production of the
\noriginal Demand Draft would not in any way affect the plaintiff’s case.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Equally so the  contention  of  the  appellant’s  side  that  the
\nplaintiff  has  not  proved  that the original Demand Draft was only for Rs.16
\n.50, and the payee was one Krishnalal Bhuvandas cannot be accepted.  In  order
\nto  prove  those facts, the plaintiff Bank has produced the counterfoil of the
\nDemand Draft bearing No.831718, as found under Exs.  A1 from which it would be
\nabundantly clear that the same was drawn on 23.6.1979 by Marutha  Road  Branch
\nfor Rs.16.50 in favour of one Krishnalal Bhandary on the plaintiff’s Branch at
\nPurasavakkam, Madras.   A comparison of the said counterfoil pertaining to the
\nDemand Draft No.8 31718 and the Demand Draft borne by Exs.A5 and A6 would make
\nit quite evident that the date, the name of  the  payee,  the  amount  of  the
\nDemand Draft and the names of the drawer and drawee all had been tampered with
\nand materially altered.  Section 87 of The Negotiable Instruments Act reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“87.   Effect of material alteration:- Any material alteration of a negotiable
\ninstrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto  at
\nthe time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was
\nmade in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.”
\nA very reading of the above provision of law would make it clear that material
\nalteration of  the negotiable instrument would render the instrument void.  In
\norder to avoid the instrument, the alteration should be  with  regard  to  the
\nmaterial  particulars and should be in such a way which would vary the rights,
\nliabilities or the legal position of the parties ascertained by  the  deed  in
\nits  original  state or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as
\noriginally expressed,  or  reduces  to  certainty  some  provision  which  was
\noriginally  unascertained  and  as  such  void, or may otherwise prejudice the
\nparty bound by the deed as originally expressed.  In  the  instant  case,  the
\nmaterial  alteration  was  by way of insertion of all the above particulars by
\nerasion and alteration.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Apart from the oral  and  documentary  evidence  adduced  by  the
\nplaintiff  Bank,  the  defendants  1  and  2  in  the  course of their written
\nstatement have well admitted the material alterations found in the  negotiable
\ninstrument in  question.  The fact remains that the second defendant acting on
\nbehalf of the  first  defendant  has  encashed  the  said  materially  altered
\ninstrument  from the plaintiff Bank through their Banker’s namely Canara Bank.
\nIt is pertinent to note that the said  instrument  in  view  of  its  material
\nalteration  has  become  void,  and  it  was not supported by consideration as
\ncontended by the plaintiff’s side.  Needless to say that the defendants 1  and
\n2  cannot claim any title on and over the materially altered instrument, which
\nwas void and unsupported by consideration.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The Court is unable to see  any  force  in  the  last  contention
\nraised by the appellants’ side that the defendants 1 and 2 were not answerable
\nto  the  loss  sustained by the plaintiff Bank in view of the gross negligence
\nand carelessness on the part of the staff of the plaintiff, and without  their
\nconnivance,  the  act  of  fraud  and  forgery  could not have been committed.
\nAdmittedly, the Demand  Draft  in  question  was  not  placed  by  the  second
\ndefendant directly before the plaintiff Bank.  But, the same was placed in the
\nhands  of  Canara  Bank  being  the  Banker  for  the  defendants  1 and 2 for
\ncollection.  According to P.W.2 , who served as a  Manager  of  the  Nedungadi
\nBank,  Oppanakara  Street,  Coimbatore,  the  original of Exs.A5 and A6 Demand
\nDraft with Serial  No.831718  D.D.No.174\/79  for  a  sum  of  Rs.65,063\/-  was
\nreceived  from  the  Canara Bank, Coimbatore, and he passed the same, since he
\ndid not entertain any suspicion over the document.  It remains  to  be  stated
\nthat  only  on 22.8.1979 when the first defendant attempted to encash a Demand
\nDraft from Dhanalakshmi Bank, Coimbatore through their  Banker  namely  Canara
\nBank,  it  was  found  out that the same was a forged one, and a complaint was
\nlodged in that regard.  According to P.W.2, when the said incident was brought
\nto the notice of the plaintiff Bank, there arose a necessity to probe into the
\ntransac tion covered under the Demand Draft in question.  Only  after  enquiry
\nit was found that the Demand Draft No.831718 was drawn on 23.6.1979 by Marutha
\nRoad   Branch  for  Rs.16.50  in  favour  of  Mr.Krishnalal  Bhandary  on  the
\nplaintiff’s Branch at Purasavakkam, Madras, and the original Demand Draft  was
\ncompletely  tampered  with  and materially altered in respect of date, name of
\nthe payee, amount of the Demand Draft and names of the drawer and drawee in an
\ningenious manner.  Thus, it would be clear that in  view  of  the  alterations
\ndone  cleverly  and in an ingenious manner, it is neither visible nor possible
\nto find out the alterations on a normal scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  A difference can normally be drawn between a Demand  Draft  being
\npaid at the counter to a person in possession thereof and a Demand Draft being
\npaid to  another  Bank  who  sought collection for one of its customers.  In a
\ncase like this where the Demand Draft was placed before the drawee Bank by the
\ncollecting Bank, the drawee Bank can act with reliance and assurance that  the
\ncollecting Bank would have discharged the duty of careful scrutiny of the said
\ninstrument  and satisfied itself about the title of its customer over the said
\nDraft.  Hence, when a Demand Draft is placed for encashment at the counter  of
\na  Bank by an unknown person, the Bank has to exercise a better degree of care
\nand discharge its duty in scrutinising and satisfying itself.  But, one cannot
\nexpect and the law would also not demand the same degree of care and  caution,
\nwhen  the Draft is placed for encashment by way of collection by another Bank.
\nIn the instant case, it was the  Canara  Bank,  who  sent  the  instrument  in
\nquestion to  the  plaintiff Bank for collection.  Hence, the contention of the
\nappellants’ side that the staff of the plaintiff Bank was grossly careless and
\nnegligent in passing the Demand Draft cannot be countenanced.  Having encashed
\na materially defective, altered, tampered and void instrument, the  defendants
\n1  and  2  who  had  no  title  over  the  said Demand Draft, cannot at all be
\npermitted to raise a defence stating that the plaintiff Bank was negligent and
\ncareless in passing the said instrument.  Thus, the Court is unable to see any
\nmerit in the appeal so as to interfere with the judgment of the  Court  below.
\nTherefore,  the  judgment  of the lower Court has got to be sustained, and the
\nappeal is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the  judgment
\nand decree of the lower Court.  The parties will bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1) The Subordinate Judge,
\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Record Keeper
\nV.R.Section
\nHigh Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM A.S.NO.466 OF 1988 1. Govindaraj & Co. 2. R. Govindarajan .. Appellants -Vs- 1. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd., a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGovindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3656,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003"},"wordCount":3656,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003","name":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T03:58:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindaraj-co-vs-the-nedungadi-bank-ltd-on-21-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Govindaraj & Co vs The Nedungadi Bank Ltd on 21 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}