Collecting bank negligence and conversion liability denied statutory protection where account opening and cheque collection were careless.

A collecting bank was held liable for conversion where it opened an account in the name of a fictitious customer, failed to make proper inquiries, and then collected and paid out cheque proceeds in a rapid sequence; on those facts, it lost the protection available under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because good faith and absence of negligence were not shown. The plaint was treated as properly signed and verified by authorised officers, the claim was held within limitation, and the right asserted was recognised as transmissible by constitutional succession. The plaintiff was nevertheless barred by its own negligence, and interest was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was properly signed and verified by an authorised person and whether the suit was within limitation. (ii) Whether the claimed right was a transmissible right within Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the bank was negligent in opening the account, collecting the cheques and paying the proceeds, and whether it was protected by Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iv) Whether the plaintiff was estopped by its own negligence from recovering the amount and whether any interest was recoverable.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was properly signed and verified by an authorised person and whether the suit was within limitation.

Analysis: The plaint was signed and verified by officers authorised under Order 27 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The claim arose from alleged conversion of the cheques and was held to be covered by the succession of rights under Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India. The suit was also held to be within time under Article 149 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed right was a transmissible right within Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right asserted was not treated as a purely personal claim. It was held to be a right arising otherwise than out of contract, relating to property in the cheques and the proceeds alleged to have been wrongfully converted, and therefore capable of vesting in the plaintiff by constitutional succession.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): Whether the bank was negligent in opening the account, collecting the cheques and paying the proceeds, and whether it was protected by Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The account was opened in the name of a fictitious customer with only a nominal initial deposit, no reliable inquiry was proved, and the account was then used in a rapid sequence of cheque collection and withdrawals. On these facts, the bank was held negligent at the stage of opening the account and collection, so it could not claim the statutory protection available only to a banker who receives payment in good faith and without negligence.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the defendant bank.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiff was estopped by its own negligence from recovering the amount and whether any interest was recoverable.

Analysis: The plaintiff's officers were found to have issued the cheques in the ordinary course of processing the bills, but the Court held that the plaintiff's negligence in the transaction itself was the proximate cause of the loss. On that basis, estoppel by negligence was applied. The claim for interest was rejected because the bank had not retained the money and the circumstances did not justify an award of interest.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the defendant bank, and interest was denied.

Final Conclusion: The suit was held not maintainable on the merits for recovery against the bank, and the plaintiff was denied the monetary relief claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: A collecting bank is liable for conversion unless it proves good faith and absence of negligence throughout the relevant transaction, including the opening of the account where that stage is part of the same fraudulent scheme, and a plaintiff may be barred by estoppel where its own negligence is the proximate cause of the loss.

---