Law: Partnership Act (IX of 1932)

Section: 18,19,20,22

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 57,85

  Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 18, 19, 20 & 22 --Provision of S. 19(2) (b) though provides that `implied authority' of partner does not include opening bank account en behalf of firm in his own name yet each partner can, if so provided by contract, open such account in his own name on behalf of firm.   Karmali Abdulla Allarakhia v. Vora Karimji Jimanji and others 42 I A 48 and Ram Chandra Sahu and another v. Kasem Khan and another A I R (1925) Cal. 29 ref.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 57 & 85-Suit not based ors pronote but on mutual and current account-Governed by Art. 85.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 85-Open and current account-Any "current account" is "open account"--Whether account "mutual" or not-Depends on agreement between Bank and person opening current account.   In a suit by a Bank there was no dispute that the account in the suit was current but the fact of the account being mutual was disputed. It was argued that if the customer is always overdrawing then there cannot be mutuality between the parties and as such an account cannot be mutual:   Held, whether an account is mutual or not shall not be dependent on the fact that there was always overdraft or there was always credit balance or sometime the Bank was a debtor and sometime a creditor and vice versa. It will depend upon the agreement between the Bank and the person who wants to open a current account. If by the agreement each party makes himself liable to satisfy the demand of the other whenever occasion arises, then there is mutuality.   Ram Pershad and another v. Harbans Singh and others 6 C L J 158; Tea Financing Syndicate, Ltd, v. Chandra Kamal Bezbourah 34 C W N 1175 and Montosh Kumar Chatterjee and another v. Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) and others 57 C W N 852 ref.   JUDGMENT   HASAN J. This appeal is at the inst4nce of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff-Bank instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for recovery of Rs. 1,79,924-13-3 with costs of the suit and subsequent interest at 6 percent per annum till realisation. The plaintiff's case in short is as…