LexCENTRAL NATIONAL BANK LTD versus UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - I 1· .r' .. , ,,_,,.. :_ ··-- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - 391 _to prevent the other unions or other -workers from forming a fresh' union 'and enrolling a higher - percent- age so as to acquire the sole right of representation. The appellants challenge, the validity of the Act as infringing_ their fundamental rights and yet they base their case of disc-rimination on the provisions of the same Act. This position is not in accord with reason or principle.· \Ve hold, therefore, that the appellants have made out no case for interference with the orders of the courts below. \Ve uphold the convictions and sentences and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant : Rajinder -Narain. - - _ Agent for -the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. - CENfRAL NATIONAL BANK LTD. ' v. - - - . UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK'LTD. [B. K. MuKHERJEA, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] Indian Sale of Goods Act (Ill of 1930), s. 30(2)-,:-lndian Con· tract Act (IX of 1372), ss. 13, 14--Agreement to sell good1-Buyer obtaini ig pouession by fraud u•ithout paying price-Rights of bona fide purchaser from buyer-.. Consenl', meaning of. The word "consent" in s. 30(2) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act means "'agreeing on the same thing in the same sensc 0 as defined in s. 13 of the Indian Contract Act and does not mean "free consent" as defined in s. 14. Therefore, possession of goods which is obtained by a person from another person who has agreed to sdl them to him, would be possession obtained "with the consent of the seller'' within the meaning of s. 30(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, even though it was obtained by fraud, except where the fraud committed is of such a character as would prevent there being consent at all. The fact that the fraud · or deception practised by the person obtaining possession is of such a character as to make him guilty of a criminal offence would_ not make any difference in the appli· cation of this p~ciple. A agreed to sell certain shares to B and sent the ·share certificates and blank transfer deeds to the defendant bank to deliver them to B on receiving payment of the price. The bank !953 Raja Kulkarni ' and O!hnJ. v. TheStauof · Bom1'ay. Ghulam HaJan J. !953 Nou. 26. 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 1903 sent one of its clerks to B's office with these papers. The clerk placed them on the table and allowed B to scrutinise them but'insisted on Oeni'ral National payment of the price before B took them. B left his office with Rank Ltd. these documents saying tha\ he was going out to bring the money, . v. . but disappeared and subsequently pledged them with the plaintiff: Unitfd Industrial Held, that in these circumstances B obtained possession of tho Bank Ltd. shares without the consent of A and that the plaintiff did not acquire any title against the defendant bank or A. Folkes v. King ([1923] 1K.B.282) and Lake v. Simmons ([1926) 2 K. B. 51) and Pearson v. Rose ([1950] 2 All E.R. 1027) relied on. Gahn v. Pockett's Bristol Ohamiel'Steam Packet Co. ([1899] 1 Q.B. 643), Oppenheimer v. Frazer ([1907) 2 KB. 50) commented upon . . Judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirmed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1953. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 12th March, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Banerjee J.) in Appeal from Original Decree dated the 21st March, 1950, of the Calcutta High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in Suit No. 1112of1946. P. C. Mullick and A. K. Dutt for the appellant. Sankar Banerjee (B. Das and S. N. Mukher.Ji, with him) for the respondent. 1953. November 26. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuKHER.TEA J.-This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of an appellate bench of the Calcutta High Court dated the 12th of March, 1951, reversing, on appeal, the decision of a single Judge of that court passed in Suit No. 1112of1946. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was com- menced by the Central National Bank Limited, the appellant before us, in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court, for a declaration that the bank acquired the rights of a pledgee in respect of two blocks of shares in two companies, to wit, the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and the Steel Corporation of Bengal Ltd. and was entitled to sell the shares in enforcement of the pledge. There was a claim fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.