Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1984%20Vol.2-P253&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:15:16+00:00

Document:
SHARVANANDA, J., ABDUL CADER, J. AND RODRIGO, J.
S.C No. 48/83 - C. A. No. 325/74 (F) - D. C. COLOMBO 73754/M.
JUNE 18 TO 20, 25 TO 27, 29, 1984.
JULY 2 TO 5, 9 TO 11, 13, 16 TO 19, 23 TO 27, 30, 31, 1984.
AUGUST 1 TO 3, 6, 7, 9, 27, 1984.
pressure duress - Estoppel by convention.
rupees. The Bank Statements were found to be fabricated and so were the counterfoils.
by it on its account was Rs. 3,381,497.28.
cheques and cash to the value of Rs. 1,276,883.03 were deposited by the plaintiff to the credit of itscurrentaccountNo.
For a first alternative cause of action the plaintiff pleaded that ifthesaidchequesandcashtothevalueofRs.
plaintiff thus suffered a loss of Rs. 1,275,883.66 together with debited interest in a sum of 49,546.16.
recover the said sum as loss and damage suffered.
breach of the fiduciary duty the defendant owed the plaintiff-company and its Managing Director Harasgama.
November 1968 Amerasinghe handed over the statements to Abeywickrema to be delivered to Ingram.
as representing the loss and damage sustained by the plaintiff.
been proved and that it was Ingram the plaintiff's Sales Manager who had misappropriated the cash and cheques.
the Court of Appeal had affirmed it.
fraudulently or negligently in the course of and within the scope of their employment as Ledger Clerks underthedefendant.
duties of the servant may be performed.
statements are handed over by the Ledger Clerk to the person who comes to deposit the Company's monies.
acquiescence and found against the defendant on it. Hence this matter can be dealt with in appeal.
the defendant to send them to the plaintiff was thereby discharged. There was here estoppel by acquiescence.
affected by an order which limits the method or mode by which the duties of the servant may be performed.
negligent or fraudulent acts committed by defendant's agents or servants.
sustained and must be set aside.
substituted them with faked ones.
over the bank statements to Abeywickrema and these statements would have gone by post.
(c)The Bank Statements of the other companies of the Collettes group were admittedly coming by post.
been known to the Accounts Section and Directorate of the plaintiff.
produced raising an adverse inference on the basis of section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance.
such negligence. The damages claimed are too remote.
it. Plaintiff has not discharged this burden.
the Principle that a wrong-doer is out of court. The maxim of public policy ex turpi causanon oritur actio does not apply.
plaintiff acted did not amount to duress. The District Judge's finding on duress is wrong.
(1)Srimati Bibhabati Devi v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy [ 1946] AC 508, 521.
(2)Silva v. Swaris (1904) 1 Bal 6 1.
(4)Sri Lanka Ports Authority v. Peiris [ 1981] 1 Sri LR 101.
(5)Flower v. Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Company Limited [ 1936] AC 206, 220, 221.
(6)Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home [ 1935] AC 243.
(7)Yuill v Yuill  All ER 183, 188, 189.
(8)Raghavamma v. Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136.
(11)Karwadi v. Shambharkar AIR 1958 Bombay 296.
(12)Ramanathan Chettiar v. Viswanathan Chettiar AIR 194 1 PC 43.
(14)John Henshal (Ouarries) Ltd v. Harvey  1 All ER 725, 729.
(15)H, L. Bolton (Engineering) Co. Ltd. v. T J. Graham & Sons Ltd. [ 1956]13 All ER 624,630.
(16)Applebee v. Percy [ 1874] L. R. 9C. P. 64 7, 656.
(17)Stiles v Cardiff Steam Navigation Co.  33 L.J. O.B, 310.
(18)Penhallow v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (1861) 30 L.J. Ex. 329, 331.
(19)Sunlife Assurance Co. of Canada v. W. H. Smith & Son Ltd. (1934) 150 Law Time 2 11, 2 15.
(20)Dodwell & Co. Ltd. v. John (1918) 20 NLR 206.
(21)De Bussche v. Alt [ 1878] 8 Ch. D. 286, 314.
(22)Cairncross v. Lorimer (1860) 3 Macq. (H. L.) 829.
(23)Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha [ 1892] L. R. 19 A. C. 1A 203.
(25)Limpus v. Londen General Omnibus Co.  1H & C 526.
(26)Canadian Pacific Railway v. Lockhart [ 1942] 2 All ER 464, 468(1942) A. C. 591.
(27)Twine v. Bean,s Express Ltd.  1 All ER 202 175 L.T 131.
(28)Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co.  AC 716, 737.
(29)Uxbridge Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Pickard  2 K.B. 248(1939) 2 All ER 344.
(31)Freeman & Lockyer (a firm) v. Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd.  1 All ER 630, 641, 646 1964 2 Q.B.
(32)Kooragang Investments Pty Ltd. v. Richardson & Wrench Ltd.  3 All ER 65.
(33)United Africa Co. v. Saka Owoade  3 All ER 216 1955 A.C 130.
(34)London County Council v. Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd.  2All ER 582 1953 1 WLR 997.
(35)Goh Choon Seng v. Lee Kim Soo  AC 550.
(36)Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co.  1 KB 516.
(37)Munday v. London County Council  2 K.B. 331, 334.
(38)East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent  4 All ER 527, 532 :  A.C 74 (H.L.).
A.C. 388  2 WLR 126 (P.C).
(41)McLean v. Bell (1932) 147 L.T. 262 48 TLR 467.
(43)S. S. Singleton Abbey v. S. S. Paludina [ 192 7] A. C. 16, 25-26 (H. L).
(45)The Oropesa 1942 P. 140, 144.
(46)The qropesa [ 1943] 1 All ER 211 1943 P 32, 37 (C. A.).
(47)Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Kelvin Shipping Company Limited (1927) 138 Law Times 369 (H. L.).
(48)The Guildford [ 1958] 3 All ER 915, 919.
(49)McWilliams v. William Arrol & Co. [ 1962] 1 All ER 623, 626, 628 (H.L).
(50)McLoughlin v. O' Brian [ 19831 AC 410, 426.
(51)Woods v. Duncan  AC 401, 442.
(52)Weld-Blundell v. Stephens  AC 956: 986.
(53)McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) [ 1969] 3 All ER 1621, 1623.
(54)Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [ 1970] 2 All ER 294, 298.
(55)Petrovitch v. Callinghams [ 196912 Lloyds Reports 386.
(56)Stansbie v. Troman [ 1948] 1 All ER 599 1984 2 KB 48.
(57)Lamb v. London Borough of Camden [ 1981] 2 All ER 408.
(58)Henderson v. Williams [ 1895] 1 QB 521, 529  AC 325, 331-332.
(59)Bank of Ireland v. Evans Trustees [ 1955] 5 HL 380.
(60)Lloyds Bank Ltd., v. E.B. Savory & Co.  AC 201 ,  All ER 105, 109.
(61)Motor Traders Guarantee Corporation Ltd. v. Midland Bank Ltd.  4All ER90,94.
(62)Orbit Mining & Trading Co. v. Westminster Bank Ltd.  3 All ER 565, 580.
(64)Fanton v. Denville  2 K. B. 309.
(65)Rudd v. Elder Dempster & Co.  1 K. B. 566, 576.
(66)H. M. S. Truculent, The Admiralty v. The Divina (Owners)  2 All ER 968.
(67)The Lady Gwendolen 1965 2 All ER 283.
(68)Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass [ 1971] 2 All ER 127 (HL).
(69)Smith v. Jenkins (1969) 119 CLR 39 7 (1970) 44 A. L. J. R. 78.
(70)Barton v. Armstrong  AC 104.
(71)Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long [ 1980] AC 614.
(72)Maskell v. Horner  3 KB 106.
(73)Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. V. Skibs A/S Avanti The "Sibeon" and the "Sibotre" , 1 Lloyds 283.
(75)Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Worker's Federation [ 1982]2 All ER 67.
(76)Thom v. Motor Trade Association  3 All ER 157, 160.
(77)The Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd., v. Texas Commerce International Bank [ 1981] 3 All ER 5 77, 584.
(78)Keen v. Holland 1984] 1 All ER 75.
(79)Grundt v. Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Ltd. (1938) 59 CLR 641, 657.
(80)Verschures Creamenes v. Hull & Netherland Steamship Co. Ltd.  2 KB 608,612.
(81)Foster v. Essex Bank 17 Massachussets Reports 478.
(82)Giblin v. McMullen  LR 2 PC 317.
(83)Foley v. Hill  2 HL Cas. 28.
(84)De Zilva v. Cassim (1903) 7 NLR 230, 233.
(85)Gray v. Barr [ 1971] 2 All ER 949.
(86)Colburn v. Patmore 1834 1 CR. M. & R 73 3 L. J. Ex. 317.
(87)Hardy v. Motor Insurers Bureau [ 1964] 2 All ER 742.
(88)Derry v. Peek  14 App. Cas. 33 7.
(89)Le Lievre v. Gould 1 QB 491, 503.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal.
Miss. R. Kandasamy and A. A. M. Illiyas for Plaintiff-appellant.
defendant-respondent to make submissions on the entire case, both on facts and on the law involved in this case.
make that which happened not in the proper sense of the word judicial procedure at all".
and ...... there may occur cases of such an unusual nature as will constrain the Board to depart from the practice."
suffers no such limitations as the Privy Council in the matter of findings of fact by an alien trial court.
found by the judge and where there is no question of the credibility of the witnesses. "
questions of fact largely founded on opinion of witnesses' demeanour are set out vividly by LordGreeneM.R.inYuillv.
when the Judgment of the trial Judge has been based in whole or in part upon his opinion of the demeanour ofthewitnesses.
of the trial judge's assessment of Harasgama applies also to his assessment of Lionel Fernando.
conclusions, I shall deal mainly with the issues of law involved in the appeal.
and cash to the value of Rs 1,275,883.03 were deposited by the plaintiff to the credit of thecurrentaccountbearingNo.
due as interest and theplaintiff's said accounts was overdrawn on 18.11.1968 only in a sum ofRs. 2,268,381.34.
blank forms of statements of accounts.
receipts and weekly statements of accounts and certificates of balances to the plaintiff.
used for certifying balances and/or other security documents.
thereof the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage in the said sum of Rs. 1,275,883.66 together with afurthersumofRs.
damage suffered by the plaintiff from the defendant bank.
negligence, and claimingdamages on such basis.
it owed towards the plaintiff-company.
that therefore issues 1 and 2 which were based upon the main cause ofactionbeansweredagainsttheplaintiff-company.
the plaintiff-company by the employees of the defendant-bank had been proved and that it wasIngram"plaintiff'semployee"
plaintiff makes no complaint against this finding.
by the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the defendant and/or its servants.
course of his duties prepared false bank statements in respect of the plaintiff-company's accounts.
(1)He extracted genuine bank statements and handed them to Ingram.
(3)He probably pilferred obsolete blank statement forms.
of statements had been observed in the breach. So was Amerasinghe and others.
arises from the failure of officials to follow the important instructions with regard to the delivery of statements.
and correct weekly statements of accounts to the plaintiff ?
permitted, to be issued incorrect receipts and weekly statements of account to the plaintiff ?
Ans : Yes, only weekly statements not receipts.
fabricated the said incorrect receipts and weekly statements of accounts?
Ans : Yes, only weekly statements not counterfoil receipts.
(b)issue and delivery of receipts, weekly statements of account and certificates of balances to the plaintiff ?
Ans : 11 (i) (a)Yes.
(b)Yes, of weekly statements of account only.
incorrect receipts or weekly statements of account?
Ans (ii) (a) Yes - weekly statements only.
(b)Yes - weekly statements only.
plaintiff that the said receipts and weekly statements of account were incorrect ?
Ans :Yes - weekly statements of account only.
9 to 12 or any of them are answered in favour of the plaintiff, has the plaintiff suffered lossanddamageinasumRs.
far that finding affected the defendent-bank.
Issue 12 refers to fraudulent concealment from the plaintiff "that the -said weekly statements ofaccountswereincorrect"
plaintiff the fact that the false weekly statements in the possession of plaintiff were incorrect.
statements came by post and were the best evidence to prove the fact that they did not come by post.
Lionel Fernando or Samuel or Harasgama himself.
J., in the case of Mt. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh (9).
be drawn as to the contents thereof."
was the absolute owner of the bungalow and that she had paid the purchase money and had collected the rents of thebungalow.
defendant who was relying on them.
not be drawn against the plaintiff.
post the bank statements and no explanation has been given for their non-production.
properly said that no adverse inference can be drawn for non-production of the saiddocumentsthoughtheywererelevant.
drawn from his non-production unless he was asked to produce the document and he fails to do so."
to have been sent out monthly by the defendant to plaintiff setting outthelimitoftheoverdraftfromJanuary1966.
necessary to the plaintiff to ascertain the limit of the overdraft available to it.
fraud committed by Ingram and this alternative cause of action could not have been maintained by him.
through a representative of the company. The defendant-bank's position was that it normally sent its statements by post.
In answer to issue 8 the defendant-bank has admitted its obligation to send weekly statements of accounttotheplaintiff.
A waiver or acquiescence must be an intentional conduct with knowledge.
and presumably their predecessors in office in the accounts section of the company must have also been awareofthatfact.
Fernando did not get in touch with the defendant-bank, but used to request him to find out fromIngramaboutsuchdelays.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.