BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RANCHI

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Sec.96, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. …………………………………………………

Appellant

V.

State of Jharkhand……...…………………………………….……………………Respondent

Written submission on behalf of the Respondent

Arnold Runda
Sem. II
Roll No. – 858

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATION----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES------------------------------------------------------------------------4
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION---------------------------------------------------------------5
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------6
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES-------------------------------------------------------------------------7
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES---------------------------------------------------------------------------8
8. ARGUMENT ADVANCED
8.1 Whether the police officers took the care enjoined on them by law, for the protection
of the box entrusted to them for safe, keeping? ------------------------------------------------9
8.2 Whether the State Government is liable for the acts of its employees in case
negligence or conversion on their part is established? ----------------------------------------11
9. PRAYER---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

&……………………………………………………………………………………………And
AIR…………………………………………………………………………..All India Reporter
HC ………………………………………………………………………………….High Court
Hon’ble …………………………………………………………………………….Honourable
Govt………………………………………………………………………………. Government
Ltd. …………………………………………………………………………………….Limited
Ors…………………………………….…………………………………………………Others
Para…………………………………….......................................................................Paragraph
P……………………………………...…………………………………………………….Page
SC …....................................................................................................................Supreme Court
SCC…………………………………….....................................................Supreme Court Case
Sec………………………………………………………………………………………Section
v.……………………………………….………………………………………………...Versus
ICA……………………………………………………………………..…..Indian Contract
Act

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES: -

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

CASE CITED: -

1. Wilson v Brett
2. Governor General of India in Council v Jubilee Mills Ltd.
3. Blount v War Office
4. Union of India v Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd
5. Amita Bhandari v Union of India
6. Sitaram Motilal Kalal v Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt

BOOKS REFERRED: -

1. Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief, 11th Edition, 2013, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
2. Pollock & Mulla, “Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts”, 14 th Edition, 2012, Vol
II., Editor – Nilima Bhadbhade
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th Edition, LexisNexis

WEBSITES REFERRED: -

I. www.manupatra.com
II. https://indiankanoon.org

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 4

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant, most humbly and respectfully submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court and accepts that the court has the power under Sec
961 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to hear the present matter and adjudge accordingly.

1
Appeal from original decree.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 5

 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. At Kanke Road, in the Ranchi district, the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. maintains a
branch. There being no arrangement for keeping the cash of the branch, a request was
made to the Inspector-General of Police for permission to keep the cash box in the
Police Thana.
2. The cash balance of the branch office will be kept in this chest at the close of the
office hours at 5 P.M. and brought the next day at 11 A.M. The government has
already granted permission for lodging the cash box in the Kanke Sub-treasury.
3. The Inspector-General granted the permission which reads as follows: "The Central
Co-operative Bank, Ltd., is permitted to deposit its cash chests in the Police Stations
Kanke in the Ranchi district provided the chests are properly locked and sealed, and
on the clear understanding that the police can take no responsibility for the contents of
the box as laid down in Police Regulations”.
4. The usual custom for a long time, and the box was sent to the police thana with a
clerk and a peon of the Bank.
5. The Inspector General of Police gave his assent and every evening the cash box
properly locked and sealed used to be deposited in the police station house malkhana,
and a receipt thereof used to be obtained on a Dak Book.
6. This went on from 1949 till 11th April 1950. On the 11th April 1950 the cash box was
locked and sealed, and a paper describing the contents was pasted on it, and the box
was duly delivered to the Head Constable of the thana, who-signed in token of receipt
in a Dak Book. The entry reads: "Cash box containing Rs. 46,946 and duly locked and
sealed."
7. On the next morning, some of the doors of the thana which used to be locked every
night were found open but not broken into and the box was found missing. It was later
found in a field 230 yards from the malkhana, the lock was intact but the hasp had
been broken and the contents removed.
8. On the night in question, according to the duty register, constable Khelanram was the
sole person guarding the police station.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 6

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: -
Whether the police officers took the care enjoined on them by law, for the protection of
the box entrusted to them for safe, keeping?

ISSUE II: -
Whether the State Government is liable for the acts of its employees in case negligence
or conversion on their part is established?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 7

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the police officers took the care enjoined on them by law, for the
protection of the box entrusted to them for safe, keeping?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi that the Police Officers did
not take reasonable care because of their negligent acts. As the consideration was received by
the member of the bank when Head Constable of the thana signed the receipt of receiving the
box in the Dak book.

ISSUE II: Whether the State Government is liable for the acts of its employees in case
negligence or conversion on their part is established?

The State Government is liable for the acts of its employees because the State Government is
vicariously liable.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 8

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the police officers took the care enjoined on them by law, for the
protection of the box entrusted to them for safe, keeping?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi that the Police Officers did
not take reasonable care.
Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that:

“In all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to
him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own
goods of the same bulk, quantity and value as the goods bailed.”

The bailee is the Police because they were having the possession of goods of the Bank under
Sec.1482.

In the case of, Wilson v Brett3, the court held that there is a uniform standard of care which
needs to be taken in all cases of bailment. Therefore, Sec 151 clearly states that the Police
was bound by the duty to take reasonable care of the box.
According to English Law, liability in bailment is absolute and bailee has no excuse to say
that the damage or failure to return the goods was due to no fault of his own.4

Though as in the contract it is clearly mentioned that the Police will not be responsible for the
contents of the box. But when the Inspector-General permitted the Bank to keep the cash box
it became an implied contract of bailment.

In the case of, Governor General of India in Council v Jubilee Mills Ltd. 5, where with the
consent of the Station master goods were stored on a railway company’s platform, wagons

2
"Bailment", "bailor" and "bailee" defined
3
(1843) 11M&W113
4
C.V. Davidge, Bailment, (1925) 41 LQR 433, 436
5
AIR 1953 Bom 46

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 9

being not available, the company was held liable when they were damaged by fire caused by
a spark emitted by a passing engine. So, in the present case the contract was implied on the
Police when he accepted the letter with his consent.

This is a case of gratuitous bailment as the Inspector General willingly accepted the Bank’s
request knowing that it’s not his duty to keep a cash box in the malkhana. A gratuitous bailee
is liable for loss for, or damage to goods only if he is guilty of gross negligence.

Negligence
As per the fact sheet the doors of the thana were not locked which used to be locked. This can
either mean that someone with the help of keys had opened the doors or the constable left it
unlocked. From the fact sheet it is clearly established that there was no negligence on part of
the Bank in this incident as the Head Constable of thana had signed the receipt in a Dak book
stating that the Cash Box has Rs.46,946, and duly locked and sealed from the bank.

In the case of, Blount v War Office6, The War Office was held liable because voluntary
bailment and the troops which were not in proper control broke into the store room and took
some articles with them of the plaintiff.
Similarly, in the present case the Inspector General willing took the responsibility of keep the
cash box safe and did not took reasonable care which resulted to plaintiff’s damage.

This can be also be found in the case of Union of India v Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd 7, where
the Railway was held liable because of negligence.

Therefore, it can be inferred here that, because of negligence reasonable care was not taken
by the Police, therefore in this case the petitioner can claim compensation.

6
(1953) 1 WLR 736: (1953) 1 ALL ER 1071
7
(1976) 3 SCC 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 10

ISSUE II: Whether the State Government is liable for the acts of its employees in case
negligence or conversion on their part is established?

The liability of the Police will move to The State of Jharkhand because The State is
vicariously liable. The vicarious liability will be covered under Master-Servant.

Course of Employment

In the case of, Amita Bhandari v Union of India8, the bank was held liable when a security
guard on duty by mistake shot a customer believing that he would steal the cash box which
had just arrived.
Similarly, negligence committed by the Constable Khelanram was within his course of
employment when he was in his duty of night shift in the thana.

In the case of, Sitaram Motilal Kalal v Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt 9, the law on this
point has been stated that “an agent will make the principle responsible so long the agent does
the act within the scope of his authority or does so under the actual control of the principle.”
As the Bank was authorised by the Govt. to keep the cash box in the thana, thus the Police
were under the control of the Principle after the consent of the Inspector General.

Therefore, it can be inferred here that, the State Govt. is liable for the acts of its employees
and hence needs to compensate for the damages of the plaintiff.

8
AIR 2004 Guj 67: 2004 AJC 2020
9
AIR 1966 SC 1697: (1966) 3 SCR 527

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 11

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the lights of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and
declare that: -

 Declare that there was absence of reasonable care on behalf of the defendant.
 State Govt. is liable for the negligence of its employees and have to compensate for
the damages of the plaintiff in the prescribed manner.

For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT PAGE: 12