Section 89 protection limited to enforcement of negotiable instruments; banks not liable for bona fide payments to account representatives.

The note addresses whether a company may invoke section 89 to recover bank payments on cheques defectively drawn and whether cheques were irregular for lacking express on-face statements that they were drawn on the company or signed as directors. It concludes that section 89 protects against enforcement of defective negotiable instruments but does not render a bank liable for bona fide payments to known representatives who operate the account where the bank reasonably believes payments authorised; similarly, formal omissions on the cheques did not render them irregular to impose bank liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 can be invoked by a company against its bank to recover amounts paid under cheques defectively drawn; (ii) Whether the impugned cheques were irregular by reason of not expressly stating they were drawn on behalf of the company and signed as directors as required by the company's resolution.

Issue (i): Whether section 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 operates to render the bank liable to the company for payments made on cheques which did not, on their face, comply with the requirements for negotiable instruments and thus could not be enforced against the company.

Analysis: Section 89 requires that a bill, promissory note or cheque purporting to bind a company must on its face show it was made, drawn, accepted or endorsed in the name of, or by or on behalf of, or on account of the company by a person acting under its authority. That provision protects companies against enforcement of defective negotiable instruments. However, the issue here is a dispute between the company and its bank, not enforcement of the instrument against the company. The courts found the bank acted bona fide, the drawers were known representatives of the only account to which the cheques could relate, and the bank had received the company's resolution and subsequent communication about signing practice. Authorities (including Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co.) and legal commentary indicate that where bankers pay bona fide to persons known to represent the company and who operate the account, the bank is not liable to repay on the ground that the cheque would not have been enforceable against the company as a negotiable instrument.

Conclusion: Section 89 cannot be invoked by the company to recover amounts from its bank paid on cheques defectively drawn; the bank is not liable in these circumstances. The decision on this issue is against the appellant (not in favour of the company).

Issue (ii): Whether the cheques were irregular or invalid because they were not signed with an express description as directors of the managing agents or did not state they were drawn on behalf of the company, contrary to the company's resolution.

Analysis: The resolution's object was to comply with section 89 and did not independently require each cheque to state on its face that it was drawn on behalf of the company or that the signatories described themselves as directors. Subsequent communication by the company authorising a particular signing form demonstrates the practical understanding and notice to the bank about how cheques would be signed. Given the reasonable construction of the resolution and the bank's knowledge of the account and its representatives, the formal deficiencies urged by the company do not render the cheques irregular so as to impose liability on the bank.

Conclusion: The impugned cheques were not irregular in a manner that would make the bank liable; this conclusion is against the appellant (not in favour of the company).

Final Conclusion: The appeal fails on the substantive issues decided: section 89 is confined to protection against enforcement of negotiable instruments and does not entitle the company to recover from its bank payments made in good faith to known representatives; the company's challenge to the form of the cheques also fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 protects companies against enforcement of defective negotiable instruments but does not render a bank liable to a company for bona fide payments made to persons known to represent and operate the company's account where the bank reasonably believes the payments are authorised.

---