Collecting banker and mutual account principles shaped the Supreme Court's treatment of credit and limitation in banking dealings.

Banking dealings involving cheques sent for collection can be treated as authorised where the customer ratifies the banker's collection steps, and the bank's conduct as collecting banker is not displaced merely because a demand draft was taken in substitution. The text also explains that reciprocal transactions such as overdrafts, cash deposits, and collection items may create a mutual, open and current account, with limitation running from the close of the year in which the last item was entered. On that basis, the claim was treated as not barred by limitation, and the majority sustained the bank's position despite a dissent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent bank was bound to give credit to the appellant for Rs. 8,800 in respect of the cheques and the substituted instruments taken in collection; and (ii) whether the claim was barred by limitation on the footing that the dealings between the parties constituted a mutual, open and current account.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent bank was bound to give credit to the appellant for Rs. 8,800 in respect of the cheques and the substituted instruments taken in collection.

Analysis: The appellant had entrusted the cheques to the respondent for collection. The respondent's acceptance of a cheque and later a demand draft in substitution for cash was not shown to be unauthorised or negligent, and the appellant, after being informed of the course adopted, ratified the steps taken. The bank's conduct was treated as that of a collecting banker acting in the appellant's interests, and the preferring of a claim in the liquidation of the drawee bank did not amount to acceptance of the draft in satisfaction of the appellant's liability.

Conclusion: The respondent was not bound to give unconditional credit to the appellant for Rs. 8,800, and the bank's claim could not be defeated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by limitation on the footing that the dealings between the parties constituted a mutual, open and current account.

Analysis: The account contained reciprocal dealings on both sides, including overdrafts, cash deposits, and items sent for collection, creating independent obligations in each direction. The balance shifted from time to time, and the account remained active until the last entry. On that footing, the account was mutual within the meaning of Article 85 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, so limitation ran from the close of the year in which the last item was entered.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the decree in favour of the respondent bank and sustained the dismissal of the appeal, while the dissent would have allowed the appellant's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where banking dealings involve reciprocal obligations creating a mutual, open and current account, and the customer ratifies the banker's collection steps, the banker is entitled to rely on those dealings for credit and limitation purposes.

---