ivil Appeal No 4586 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1431983 of the Delhi High Court in RFA OS No 3 of 1983
Pallav Shishodiya and D Bhandari for the Appellant
VC Mahajan Arun Madan and CVS Rao for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
Special leave granted
Arguments heard
This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed in RFA OS 3 of 1983 on March 14 1983 by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Civil Writ Petition in limini against the judgment and decree rendered by Chawla J in Suit No 50 of 1972 on February 12 1982
The matrix of this case is stated hereunder
The appellant Ms Marwar Tent Factory is a firm having its registered office at Jodhpur Rajasthan and dealing in the manufacture and sale of tents and tarpaulins
The firm is a regular supplier of these goods to the defence services of India
On March 13 1986 tenders were invited for the supply of tents by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals the respondent No 2
Accordingly the appellant submitted a tender which was accepted by the officer of the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals on behalf of the President of India
The said contract was of two kinds of tents Flies Inner  and Flies Outer 
The agreed rate for the Flies Outer  was Rs225 per tent and the quantity was 19100
In accordance with the said terms of the contract the goods were to be inspected at the premises of the firm at Jodhpur and after the same being passed by the Inspector the goods had to be despatched to the Commandant COD Kanpur
It was further agreed between the 130 parties that 95 of the price was payable on proof of des patch and production of the inspection note
The balance 5 was to be paid after receipt of the goods in good condition by the COD Kanpur
On October 14 1968 one consignment of 1500 tents was despatched to the COD Kanpur by the appellant under Railway receipt No 502671 dated 14101968 and 95 of the price was paid by demand drafts dated 17101968 and 1951969
The Commandant COD Kanpur reported that 224 tents out of a sale consignment had not been received at Kanpur and consequently a sum of Rs51912 being the full price of those 224 tents inclusive of sales tax was deduct ed from the amounts due to the appellant under another contract
The appellant made repeated requests and sent repeated reminders for payment of the said sum of Rs51912 from the respondent but without any effect
As such the appellant filed a suit being Suit No 50 of 1972 in the High Court at Delhi for recovery of the said principal sum as well as interest on the principal
The appellant further claimed interest on two other consignments as the price of the said consignments was paid after a great delay
The two consign ments were of 700 and 1400 tents despatched on August 10 1968 and August 27 1968 respectively
Though 95 of the price was paid the balance 5 amounting to Rs24357 was not paid till December 1 1971 despite repeated requests and reminders
The said payment of Rs24357 was wrongfully delayed by about three years and a sum of Rs8525 was therefore claimed as interest  12 per annum from 111969 to 1121971 on the said amount
The total claim of the appellant was of Rs74972 ie Rs51912 principal sum and Rs 14535 as interest on this and Rs8525 as interest on the sum of Rs24357 wrongfully withheld for three years
A joint statement was filed by the respondent Nos 1 2  5 as their interest were identical
The defence was that 224 tents were received short under railway receipt No 502671 and the sum of Rs519 12 was rightly deducted from the payment due to the appellant under other contracts
The respondent Nos 3 and 4 also filed a joint written statement stating inter alia that only 11 tents were deliv ered short under railway receipt No 502671 for which the admitted liability was to the tune of Rs2475
This sum had been paid to the COD Kanpur by debit adjustment
131 TPS Chawla J by his judgment and order dated Febru ary 12 1982 though dismissed the claim of the appellant substantially but in so far as the amount of Rs2475 re garding the shortage of 11 terms admitted by respondent Nos 3 and 4 was concerned decreed the said sum in favour of the appellant with interest  12 per annum from 141972 till the date of judgment and further interest  6 from the date of judgment till the realisation of the amount
Against the said judgment and decree the appellant preferred an appeal being RFA OS No 3 of 1983 before the Division Bench of the said High Court
The said appeal was however dismissed by the High Court of Delhi by order dated March 14 1983
The instant appeal on special leave has been preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid judgment and decree
The crucial question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether 1500 tents which were loaded in the rail way wagons on October 14 1968 at Jodhpur for delivery to the respondent No 5 the Commandant COD Kanpur under railway receipt No 502671 were actually delivered to the respondent No 5
It has been held by the Trial Court ie learned single Judge High Court Delhi that the tents were carried in 3 wagons upto Agra
The railway line from Jodhpur to Agra was a meter gauge
Thereafter from Agra to Kanpur which is a broad gauge line the tents were put into four broad gauge wagons at Agra for onward transmission to Kan pur as evident from the transmission register
It has been found that the railways could not establish the delivery of 224 tents under railway receipt No 502671 to the Comman dant COD Kanpur from the unloading register
The short age certificate issued by the railways corroborates the entries in the unloading register
The particulars of the consignment are set out in the heading of this document
The railway receipt is No 502671 and the names of the sendor and consignee are also mentioned
The Traffic Officer Commandant COD Kanpur filed a claim with the railways on February 10 1969 for 224 packages received short and this claim was made under railway receipt No 502671
The plea of the railways was that the shortage was of 11 tents and not of 224 tents
It has been found by the Trial Court that this plea is falsified by the unloading register the shortage certificate and the reconciliation statement as also the report made by their Traffic Inspector on December 9 1970
Accordingly it was held that under railway receipt No 502671 the appellant delivered the full quantity of 1500 tents to the railways but the latter failed to deliver 224 tents out of this consignment to the Commandant COD Kanpur and as such the railways are estopped from contending that it was under some other railway 132 receipt
The Trial Court however held that no decree could be passed against the railways because the plaint did not contain any claim for loss or non delivery against the railways
Secondly the suit against the railways was barred by time and thirdly since no notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act was served on the railways by or on behalf of the appellant
The appellant however submitted that the title of the goods passed on to the respondent No 5 Commandant COD Kanpur the moment the tents were lodged on rail head Jodhpur as the term of delivery under the contract was FOR Jodhpur
For any short delivery of the goods made by the railways at Kanpur the appellant was not responsible and the respondent No 5 under the terms of the contract is not entitled to deduct the price of the short delivery of tents ie 224 tents
It was for the Commandant COD Kanpur to claim damages from the rail ways and the Commandant had actually made a claim as stated hereinbefore to the railways in respect of the short deliv ery
The learned single Judge however found that the abbreviation FOR meant Free on Rail meaning simply that the cost of the carriage of the goods upto the railway wagon is included in the price and must be borne by the seller and the cost of carriage thereafter is to be borne by the buyer
It has also been held that the risk in the goods would not pass at Jodhpur as expressly stipulated in the general conditions of contract contained in Form DGS  D 68
These were made applicable by clause 7 in the Schedule of accept ance of tender
Special emphasis was laid to the condition No 4 entitled responsibility of contractor for executing the contract
The learned Judge has with reference to sub clause 10 of this condition held that the goods shall remain in every respect at the risk of the contractor until their actual delivery to the consignee at the stipulated place and as such the risk of the appellant remains until the goods were actually delivered to the Commandant COD Kanpur
The argument as regards condition No 14 of the general conditions of contract as well as its sub clause 2 entitled passing of property was negatived on the ground that the risk was governed by condition 41 of the general conditions of contact
The claim before the railways being time barred and also no notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act having been served on the Railways within the stipulated period the appellant could not claim for damages for breach of contract and for the price of the tents not delivered
However in respect of the price of 11 tents the shortage of which was admitted by the railways and for which a sum of Rs2475 was paid to the respondent No 5 by the appellant it was decreed with interest  12 per annum from 141972 till the date of passing of the decree and also further allowed interest on the said sum  6 per annum thereafter till the date of 133 payment
The respondents however did not question the finding of the Trial Court regarding the short delivery of 224 tents at the railway station at Kanpur
Admittedly there has been a short delivery of 224 tents out of the consignment of 1500 tents loaded at Jodhpur railway station in the railway wagon under the said receipt No 50267 1
In order to decide and fix the responsibility for pass ing of the decree in respect of the sum of Rs51912 being the full price of 224 tents inclusive of sales tax deducted from the amount due to the appellant under another contract by the respondent No 5 it is pertinent to consider the question when the property in goods passed from the seller to the buyer at Jodhpur when the goods were loaded in rail way wagons for delivery to the consignee at Kanpur
The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the condition No 11 of the Schedule of acceptance of tender dated February 29 1968
It has been mentioned therein that the terms of delivery was FOR Jodhpur ie free on rail at Jodhpur railway station
It has also been mentioned that before the goods are loaded on railway wagons for delivery to the respondent No 5 at Kanpur the Inspector IGS North India will inspect the same at firm s premises at Jodhpur and after approval the said goods will be despatched to its destination by placing them in the railway wagons at Jodhpur railway station and the railway receipt has to be sent to the consignee under registered cover immediately after despatch of the stores with full details
It is also stipulated that 95 of the price of the goods will be paid by the respondent No 5 on receipt of the railway receipt and the inspection note and the balance 5 will be paid after the same reached at the destination in goods condi tion
Referring to this term for delivery under clause 11 of the Schedule of acceptance of tender it has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delivery was complete at Jodhpur when thegoods were loaded in the goods train for delivery to the respondent No 5 at Kanpur and property in the goods passed to the buyer as soon as the goods were despatched by railway at Jodhpur
Thereafter the risk in respect of the goods despatched remained with the consignee
The appellant the consignor is entitled to get the entire price of the 224 tents which were short delivered by the respondent Nos 3 and 4 to respondent No 5 at Kanpur in view of the clear finding by the Trial Court that though the entire consignment of 1500 tents was actually loaded in the railway wagons for despatch to the consignee the re spondent No 5
The respondent No 5 duly filed a claim to the railways the respondent Nos 3 and 4 for the short delivery to the tune of 224 tents immediately after taking delivery of the goods
In order to decide the question as to whether the rights in the goods passed from 134 the seller to the buyer ie from the appellant to the respondent No 5 as soon as the goods were loaded in railway wagons at Jodhpur and the railway receipt was sent to the consignee it is pertinent to refer to the meaning of the words FOR Jodhpur
In Haulsbury s Law of England 4th Edition Volume 41 at page 800 para 940 it has been men tioned that Under a free on rail contract FOR the seller undertakes to deliver the goods into railway wagons or at the station depending on the practice of the railway at his own ex pense and commonly to make such contract with the railway on behalf of the buyer as is reasonable in the circumstances
Prima facie the time of delivery FOR fixes the point at which property and risk pass to the buyer and the price becomes payable In Benjamin s Sale of Goods 2nd Edition at page 1799 it is stated as under Stipulations as to time of delivery  provi sions as to the time of delivery in an for
contract are taken to refer to the time of shipment and not to the time of arrival of the goods and this may be so even though the provision in question contemplates the arrival of the goods by a certain time
Thus in Fre bold and Sturznickel Trading as Panda OHDV vs Circle Products Ltd German sellers sold toys to English buyers fob
Continental Port on the terms that the goods were to be deliv ered in time to catch the Christmas trade
The goods were shipped from Rotterdam and reached London on November 13 but because or  an oversight for which the sellers were not responsible the buyers were not notified of the arrival of the goods until the following January 17
It was held that the sellers were not in breach as they had delivered the goods in accordance with the requirements of the contract by shipping them in such a way as would normally have resulted in their arrival in time for the Christmas trade
 The question as to the meaning of FOR contract fell for consideration in the case of Girija Proshad Pal vs The National Coal Co Ltd AIR 1949 Calcutta 472
PB Muk harji J as His Lordship then was observed in para 11 as follows 135 The words for are well known words in commercial contracts
In my judgment they mean when used to qualify the place of delivery that the seller s liability is to place the goods free on the rail as the place of deliv ery
Once that is done the risk belongs to the buyer
 Reference may also be made in this connection to the decision of this Court rendered in The Commissioner of Sales Tax Eastern Division Nagpur vs Husenali Adamji and Co 1959 2 Supp
SCR 702
In that case under the terms of the contract the respondent Company whose place of business was situate in Chanda in the erstwhile Central Provinces had to load diverse quantities of sawar  logs on railway wagons and to despatch the same from Chanda and other railway stations in the Central Provinces to Ambernath a town in the erstwhile Province of Bombay
Clause 2 of the contract reserved the right of the consignee to examine the goods on arrival at Ambernath and to reject the same if they were found in the opinion of the factory manager not to conform with the specifications
Clause 6 also provided that the goods shall be measured under the supervision of the facto ry s representative the decision of the factory manager at Ambernath would be binding on the contractor and by clause 7 the prices of the goods shall be FOR Ambernath 
The question arose was as to when and where the property in the logs passed from the respondent to the consignee and whether the respondent was liable to pay sales tax under the provi sions of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947
The Sales Tax Department levied the tax on the re spondent on the ground inter alia that the property in the logs passed from the respondent to the factory consignee under section 23 of the Indian when the logs were loaded in the wagons at railway stations within the Central Provinces and the railway receipts taken in the name of the factory were forwarded to the latter
It was held that on a proper construction of the contract as a whole the intention of the parties was that the respondent would send the logs by rail from the different stations in the Cen tral Provinces to Ambernath where the factory manager would inspect measure and accept the same if in his opinion they were of the de scription and quality agreed upon
Consequent ly as the respondent sent the logs and left it to the factory to appropriate to the con tract such of them as they accepted as of contract quality and description the proper ty in the logs did not pass to the buyer by 136 the mere delivery to the railway for carriage but passed only at Ambernath when the logs were appropriated by the factory with the assent of the seller within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Safe of Goods Act 1930
 It is also convenient to referto the provision of Section 232 of the Indian 
This sub section provides that 2 Where in pursuance of the contract the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee whether named by the buyer or not for the purpose of transmission to the buyer and does not reserve the right of disposal he is deemed to have uncondition ally appropriated the goods to the contract In the instant case in view of the terms and conditions of the contract embodied in clause 11 of the Schedule of acceptance of tender regarding the place of delivery FOR Jodhpur  the property in the goods passed immediately on from the seller after delivering the goods and loading the same in the railway wagons at Jodhpur for transmission to the buyer the consignee without reserving any right of disposal
The seller is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract only under section 26 of the said Act the goods remained at seller s risk until the property therein is transferred to the buyer
As stated earlier that the property in goods has been transferred to the buyer by the seller by delivery of the goods and loading the same at Jodhpur in railway wagons
In this connection reference may be made to Section 391 of said Act
Consid ering the aforesaid provisions of The as well as the terms and conditions of delivery ie FOR Jodhpur  the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the property in the goods together with the risk passed from the seller to the buyer ie from consignor to the consignee as soon as the goods were loaded in the railway wagons at Jodhpur as per the terms of delivery ieFOR Jodhpur
Therefore the finding of the Trial Court that the risk throughout ramained with the appellant until the goods were actually delivered to the Commandant COD Kanpur is wholly wrong and illegal
The further finding of the Trial Court that the risk was governed with the condition No 41 of the Schedule of Acceptance of Tender and the property in the goods ie the tents did not pass until the same were actually delivered to the Commandant COD Kanpur and the Commandant COD Kanpur was not liable for loss of the tents during the period of transit by the railways is also illegal and bad
As stated hereinbefore on considera 137 tion of the place of delivery as well as the terms of deliv ery embodied in clause 11 of the Schedule of Acceptance of Tender the property in the goods along with the risk in the goods passed from the appellant to the respondent No 5 when the goods were delivered and despatched by railway wagons at Jodhpur ie FOR Jodhpur
The consignee Commandant COD Kanpur is therefore liable for the price of 224 tents which was deducted by him from the other bills of the appellant
The findings of the Trial Court which were con firmed by the Division Bench of the High Court are there fore liable to be set aside and the claim of the plaintiff appellant should be decreed
As regards the claim of interest on the unpaid price of 224 tents amounting to Rs51912 for the period from 111969 to 1121972  12 per annum the Courts below disallowed the claim on the findings that no claim for the price of the goods had been made against the railways nor any notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act had been served on respondent Nos 3 and 4 and the suit was barred by limitation against the Railways
We have already held hereinbefore that the appellant is entitled to get not only the price of the goods but also the interest thereon for not making the payment of the price of the goods within a reasonable time
The interest  12 per annum was claimed by the plaintiff appellant on Rs51912 being the price of 224 tents for the period from 111969 to 1121972
It is appropriate to refer in this connection to the relevant provisions of Section 612 of the Act 3 of 1930 which reads as follows 612 In the absence of a contract to the contrary the Court may award interest as such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price a to the seller in a suit by him for the amount of the price from the date of the tender of the goods or from the date on which the price was payable b to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of a breach of the contract on the part of the seller from the date on which the payment was made
 In the instant case undoubtedly it has been found by the Courts below that the short delivery of 224 tents oc curred during the transmit of the said goods by the rail ways
It is also an admitted fact that the respondent No 5 the Commandant COD Kanpur deducted the price of the said 224 tents from the other bills of the contractor ie the 138 appellant and did not pay the same The appellant has claimed interest in respect of the price of the said goods being not paid to the appellant within a reasonable time from the date of delivery of the goods ie for the period from 111969 to 1121971
The respondent No 5 did not dispute the claim of the appellant in this regard
His only plea was that in the notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure served on the respondents the claim of interest was not made and as such the claim of interest could not be allowed
In the case of BB Bose vs National Coal Trading Company AIR 1966 Patna 346 the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of price of goods sold to the defendant
Before filing the suit the plaintiff served a demand notice on the defendant
In the demand notice exhibit 2 no claim for interest was put by the plaintiff
It was urged on behalf of the defendant that there was no stipulation for payment of interest in case the price remained unpaid in the contract and as such the plain tiff could not claim any interest on the unpaid amount
This was negatived by the High Court Patna and it was held   
That is no doubt true but the demand clearly was for the outstanding balance price of coal which the plaintiff had supplied to the defendant
The supplies had been effected upto the 26th June 1954 and in the normal course the price ought to have been paid by the defendant within a reasonable time of the deliveries but the payment had been delayed for nearly three years and plain tiff was obliged to institute the present suit for recovery of the price
In such circum stances it was within the discretion of the court to award interest to the plaintiff at a reasonable rate on the amount of the price under section 612 of the 
The price was undoubtedly payable when the notice of demand exhibit 2 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant and there can be no doubt that the rate of 6 per cent per annum which the Court awarded was a reasonable rate Similar question cropped up for decision in the case of Ms MKM Moosa Bhai Amin Kota vs Rajasthan Textile Mills Bhawanimandi Raj LW 77
In this case the plaintiff filed the suit for price of the goods delivered as well as for interest on the unpaid price
The claim regarding interest was disallowed by the District Judge on the ground that there was no stipulation for pay ment of interest in case the price of the goods supplied remained unpaid
It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that even 139 in the absence of the contract the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable interest under Section 612 of the 
The supply had been effected upto September 18 1962 and in normal case the price of the goods ought to have been paid by the defendant within a reasonable time of the deliveries but the payment had been delayed for nearly a year which compelled the plaintiff to bring the suit for recovery of the price
It has been held that in such circum stances the lower courts should have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff and awarded interest on the amount of the price of the goods under Section 612 of the 
The High Court of Rajasthan allowed interest  6 per annum which was considered to be a reason able rate of interest
On a conspectus of all the decisions referred to before as well as the provisions of Section 612 of the  we are constrained to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of interest on the unpaid price from 111969 to 1121971  6 per annum which is consid ered to be a reasonable rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff appellant
In the premises aforesaid the appeal is allowed and the judgments and the decree of the Courts below in so far as they rejected the claims regarding the price of 224 tents and interest thereon are set aside
The plaintiff appel lant s claim for the price of the said goods as well as interest thereon  6 per annum for the period from 111969 to 1121971 is hereby decreed
The appeal is thus allowed with costs quantified at Rs4000
The claim for interest  6 per annum for the period from 111972 till date of payment of amount unpaid is allowed
Y Lal Appeal allowed


Summary:
The plaintiff respondent filed original suit No 7667 of 1975 against the appellant Bank in the City Civil Court Madras for recovery of Rs2638349 p together with inter est and costs being the amount of loss suffered by it on account of the negligence and conversion on the part of the appellant who negligently allowed one Sethuraman Manager of the plaintiff s firm to open a fictitious account in the name of Industrial Chain Concern as its proprietor and helped him to pay in stolen drafts and cheques drawn in favour of the plaintiff and by collecting the same and paying the proceeds thereof to Sethuraman and closing the account thereafter
The plaintiff s case was that it was doing extensive business in steel Roller chains and sprock ets with leading Industries and Government undertakings and had supplied goods to seven parties who sent to it drafts and cheques for Rs2638349 p which were received by Sethuraman its Manager who opened fictitious account in the name of the firm with the bank and withdrew the amount defrauding the plaintiff
According to the plaintiff the Bank was negligent and guilty of conversion in opening the account as also in collecting the cheques
Hence it was liable to make good the loss suffered by it
The appellant Bank denied the allegations of negligence levelled by the plaintiff
It stated that Sethuraman who was a Collegemate of the Manager of the Bank was known to him earlier and at the time of opening the account he had represented to the Bank that he as proprietor had started a firm under the name and style of Industrial Chain Concern and had shown in that connection some business papers on the basis of which the Manager gave the introduction necessary to open the Account but the manager declined to grant overdraft facility asked for by him
The bank asserted that it acted in good faith throughout the dealings till the closure of the account
The Trial Court held that the appellant bank had acted in good faith but not without negligence in opening the account and operating the same in the process of collection of chequesdrafts and that it was not 28 entitled to protection of section 131 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act
Accordingly it decreed the plaintiff s suit Bank s appeal to the High Court against the decree of the trial Court was dismissed
Hence this appeal by Special Leave
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD As a general rule a banker before accepting a customer must take reasonable care to satisfy himself that the person in question is of good reputation and if he fails to do so he will run the risk of forfeiting the pro tection under section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
What is reasonable care will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case
45F G The courts have tended to accept the practices and procedures which bankers lay down for themselves but that can by no means be decisive
45G Till an account is opened no banker customer relation ship exists between the bank and the person proposing to open an account
Once the account is open the relationship is created and with it mutual rights and obligations between the banker and the customer are created under law
Opening an account by depositing cash is slightly different from opening one by a cheque as in that case the Bank has to act according to the tenor of that instrument and its collection and payment involves the Bank s avowed duty to its real owner if the proposer happens not to be its real owner
Even when an account is opened by depositing cash but so soon after the opening of the account any cheque is paid into it as to make it part of the same transaction with the opening the same duty may be implied by law
34D F One of the tests of deciding whether the Bank was negli gent though not always conclusive is to see whether the Rules or instructions of the Banks were followed or not
In the instant case Sethuraman having been known to the Manag er who gave the introduction there was no violation of any instruction or Rules
35E 36D Except when circumstances of a case so justify in making inquiries the bankers attitude may be solicitious and not detective
It is difficult to hold that the Bank was negli gent in opening the account accepting the deposit of cash by a person known to the Manager of the Bank under the circumstances
37G 38B 29 The bank normally has an obligation to collect the customer s cheques paid into his account
42H In every case of opening an account bank takes a man date and until changed controls the operation of the account
In the instant case having already opened the account the Bank was not concerned to question the custom er s title to a cheque paid in by him when a cheque was drawn in favour of industrial Chain Concern 
41A B If a banker fails to present a cheque within a reason able time after it reaches him he is liable to his customer for loss arising from the delay
A banker receiving instruc tions paid in for collection and credit to a customer s account may collect solely for a customer or for himself or both
Where he collects for the customer he will be liable in conversion if the customer has no title
However if he collects in good faith and without negligence he may plead statutory protection under section 131 of the Act
41D E To enable a bank to avail the immunity under sec tion 131 as a collecting banker he has to bring himself within the conditions formulated by the section
Otherwise he is left to his common law liability for conversion or for money had and received in case of the person from whom he took the cheques having no title or defective title
The conditions are a that the banker should act in good faith and without negligence in receiving a payment that is in the process of collection b that the banker should re ceive payment for a customer on behalf of him and thus acting as a mere agent in collection of the cheque and not as an account holder c that the persons for whom the banker acts must be his customer and d that the cheque should be one crossed generally or especially to himself
The receipt of payment contemplated by the section is one from the drawee bank
It is settled law that the onus of bringing himself within the section rests on the banker
There is very little evidence relating to the deposit and particulars of cheques deposited and hence it is difficult to hold that the Bank ignored obvious indications and was negligent at that time
41G H 42A 48G Commissioner of Taxation vs English Scottish  Austra lian Bank  Ladbroke  Co vs Todd  Turner vs London  Provincial Bank 1903 2 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 33 Mariani  Co vs Midland Bank at 582 Lloyds Bank Ltd vs EB Savory  Company  Capital  Counties Bank vs Gordon 1903 AC 240 Barclays Bank Ltd vs Astley Indus trial Trust Ltd  Arab 30 Bank Ltd vs Ross  Karak Rubber Co Ltd vs Burden No 2  Penmount Estates Ltd vs National Provincial Bank Ltd  Motor Traders Guarantee Corpn
vs Midland Bank Ltd  Bharat Bank Ltd vs Kishanchand Chel laram AIR 1955 Mad 402 Sanyasilingam vs Exchange Bank of India AIR 1948 Bombay 1 Woodbrier vs Catholic Bank AIR 1958 Kerala 316 Orbit Mining  Trading Co vs Westminister Bank  Underwood vs Bank of Liverpool  Bapulal Premchand vs Nath Bank Ltd AIR 1946 Bom
482 Lloyds Bank Ltd vs Chartered Bank of India Australia  China and Ross vs London County Westminister  Parr s Bank Ltd  referred to