Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am highly elated to carry out my research on this case, National bank of lahore ltd vs sohan lal sehgal and others. I would like to give my deepest regard to my course teacherMs padma aprajita parija, who held me with her immense advice, direction and valuable assistance, which enabled me to march ahead with this case.. I would like to thank my friends, who gave me their precious time for guidance and helped me a lot in completing my project by giving their helpful suggestion and assistance. I would like thanks to my seniors for their valuable support. I would also like to thank the library staff and computer lab staff of my university for their valuable support and kind cooperation.
Table of Content
Acknowledgements.2 Table of contents. 3 Research Methodology...4 Objectives.5 Introduction.6 History of Bailment...6 Facts of the Case.8 Findings of the High court...9 Modern View..11 Application to the |Present Case ...................................................................12 Conclusion14
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has followed the non doctrinal method for research design. The research is based on both primary and secondary sources. Books from the universitys library have been used. Computer from the computer laboratory of the university has been used for the purpose of secondary research and is the main source of project.
OBJECTIVES
1) To discuss about Bailment and its concept. 2) To discuss about Present case and findings of the court.
INTRODUCTION:
The respondents hired lockers in the safe deposit vaults from the appellant bank at Jullundur through its manager under different agreements on various dates during 1950. In April 1951, the lockers were tampered with and the valuables of the respondents kept in them were removed by the Manager. In due course the Manager was prosecuted and convicted for theft. The respondents filed three suits against the bank for the recovery of different sums being the value of the contents of the lockers which had been removed. The bank denied its liability on various grounds and also contended that the suits were, barred by limitation. The trial court held that the Bank was liable to bear the loss incurred by the respondents and that the suits were notbarred by limitation. On appeal, the High Court accepted the findings of the trial court on both the questions and dismissed the appeals.
HISTORY OF BAILMENT:
The concept of bailment came up in the case Coggs v Bernard 1 ,where bailments were divided into six clauses.In which three were given describing Gratuitous Bailment.They were :
1
The gratuitous deposit of a chattle2 with the bailee,who is simply to keep it for bailor.
National Bank of Lahore Ltd. Vs Sohan lal Sehgal and others The dilevery of the chattle to a bailee one is to do domething without reward for the bailee to or with the chattle. The gratuitous loan of a chattle by the bailor to the bailee for the bailee for use.
These three clauses are without compensation and are designated gratuitous bailments. Brief Fact Summary of Coggs v Bernard Coggs (Defendant) moved casks of brandy owned by Bernard (Plaintiff) from one place to another. Through Defendants negligence, some of the casks were broken, and a large amount of brandy was lost. Plaintiff sued Defendant for the amount of brandy lost.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any man who undertakes to do an act is liable to an action if because of his neglect, damage occurs.
Facts. Plaintiff sued Defendant for the amount of brandy lost. Plaintiff received judgment. Defendant appealed, claiming that he was neither a common porter, nor received any reward orconsideration. Issue:. If man undertakes to do an act, is he liable for any resulting damage, even if he had no official duty or responsibility? Held Yes Judgment affirmed Any man who undertakes to do an act is liable, if damage occurs as a result of his negligence. Concurrence. (Chief Justice Holt) The owners trusting him with the goods is a sufficient consideration to oblige him to a careful management. Discussion. Once you start to act, you impose upon yourself the duty to act reasonably. One who has custody without possession like a servant or guest using his hosts goods is not a bailee.3
2 3
a personal possession Pollock and Mulla:The Indian Contract and Specific Relief acts
The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Bank was liable to bear the loss incurred by the plaintiffs and that the suits were not barred by limitation. On appeal, the High Court of Punjab accepted the findings of the The only question raised in these appeals is one of limitation. Before considering the question of limitation it is necessary.
10
MODERN VIEW:
Where the breach of duty alleged arises out of a liability independently of the personal obligation undertaken by contract it is tort and it may be tort even though there may happen to be a contract between the parties, if the duty' in fact arises independently of that contract. Breach of contract occurs where that which is complained of is a breach of duty arising out of the obligations undertaken by the contract." If the suit claims are for compensation for breach of the terms of the contracts,this article has no application and the appropriate article is Art. 115, which provides a period of 3 years for compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied, from the date when the contract is broken. If the suit claims are based on a wrong committed by the Bank or its agent dehors the contract. Where the bailors goods are stolen from the custody of the bailee,he will be liable if there has been negligence on his part.In a case it was held that Where the plantiff stayed at a hotel and his articles were stolen while he was away ,the hotelier was held liable as the room was to his knowledge,in an insecure condition4
11
12
13
CONCLUSION:
According to section 148 Bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose upon a contract,that they shall ,when the purpose is accomplished,be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them.The person delivering the goods is called theBailor .The person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee. The first important characteristic of bailment is the delivery of possession by one person to another delivery of possession for this purpose shall be distinguished from a mere custody. An old customer went into a restaurant for the purpose of dining there .When he entered the room a waiter took his coat ,without being asked and hung it in a hook behind him.When the customer rose to leave the coat was gone. 6
Whatthe waiter did might be no more than an act of voluntary courtesy towards the customer,yet the restaurant keeper was held liable as a bailee .The waiter by taking the coat into his possession had relieved the plantiff of its care and had thus assumed the liability of a bailee b.It was he who selected the place where the coat should be put . Similarly in this case the plantiffs who deposited their belongings in he bank locker is entitled to get a compensation since it was the duty of the bankers to take care of the lockers in the bank.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Mulla:The Indian Contract Act by SIR DINSHAH FARDUNJI MULLA Law of Contract And Specific Relief by AVTAR SINGH
14