ORDER 1. This intra Court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is at the instance of defendant No. 2 against the judgment and decree, passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 55 of 1985, decided on 19-9-1995. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein, (Hereinafter for brevity the 'NTC') had filed a suit against the appellant State Bank of Indore (Hereinafter for brevity the 'SBI') and respondent No. 2 Haider Ali for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,000/- being value of 7 cheques, issued in favour of NTC by Haider Ali and deposited with appellant Bank but lost by it, interest and notice charges. 3. Facts giving rise for deciding the said appeal are mentioned hereinbelow:- Defendant No. 1, Haider Ali, carried on business in cotton waste etc. from Indore. Defendant No. 2 (the present appellant) is a statutory corporation constituted and incorporated under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959 and is carrying on its banking business from its various branches situated in India and abroad. The defendant No. 1, pursuant to issuance of a Tender Notification, had taken delivery of the goods and towards price of the said cotton waste taken by him, he had issued 9 cheques to respondent No. 1 plaintiff (NTC). The said 9 cheques were deposited by respondent No. 1 with appellant Bank for its collection. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here, that respondent No. 2 Haider Ali and respondent No. 1 NTC, both had accounts in the same bank, but, their branches were different. 4. On presentation of the said 9 cheques by respondent No. 1 to the appellant, the same were sent for its collection from the branch, where respondent No. 2 was having its account. It appears, that during transit, out of 9 cheques, 7 cheques were lost. Thus no collection thereof could be made. The said cheques were lost, while they were handled by the Appellant Bank. After 7 cheques having been lost, appellant intimated to respondent No. 1 plaintiff to get fresh cheques for the said amounts from respondent No. 2, but, respondent No. 2 refused to oblige, respondent No. 1. It further appears that whereabouts of respondent No. 2 are no more available and party was not at all available at Indore. 5. After 7 cheques having been lost, appellant intimated to respondent No. 1 plaintiff to get fresh cheques for the said amounts from respondent No. 2, but, respondent No. 2 refused to oblige, respondent No. 1. It further appears that whereabouts of respondent No. 2 are no more available and party was not at all available at Indore. 5. On the suit being filed by NTC against appellant State Bank of Indore and respondent No. 2, the appellant filed its written statement, denying the allegations and its liability for payment of the value of cheques to plaintiff NTC. According to it, it had acted bona fide and if the cheques had been lost, while they were being sent for collection, no liability can be fastened on the Bank. It was further submitted that in any case, there was no sufficient amount to the credit of respondent No. 2, for this reason also, Bank was not liable to pay the amount of the value of cheques to the plaintiff and plaintiff had other remedies available at its disposal for recovery of the amount of these cheques. 6. The learned Trial Court framed issues. Parties went to trial. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff NTC, but, decree was passed only against defendant No. 1 Haider Ali. No liability was fastened on appellant Bank. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred First Appeal in High Court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, has modified the decree of the Trial Court and has passed the decree against the Bank also. Thus, the decree is now joint and several against both the original defendants of the suit. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, passed by learned Single Judge, this Appeal has now been preferred under clause-x of the Letters Patent by defendant No. 2 Bank. 10. We have, accordingly, heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has placed strong reliance on the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. For proper appreciation of the arguments, the said provisions are produced hereinbelow- 30. 10. We have, accordingly, heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has placed strong reliance on the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. For proper appreciation of the arguments, the said provisions are produced hereinbelow- 30. Liability of drawer.- The drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque is bound in case of dishonour by the drawee or acceptor thereof, to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonour has been given to, or received by, the drawer as hereinafter provided. 31. Liability of drawee of cheque.- The drawee of a cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque must pay the cheque when duly required so to do, and, in default of such payment, must compensate the drawer for any loss or damage caused by such default. 12. It has been contended by learned counsel for appellant that respondent No. 2 Drawer of the cheques did not have sufficient funds in his account, thus, in any case the cheques given by him i.e. Drawer, Haider Ali, to plaintiff NTC could not have been honoured for want of funds. Thus, even if, the same were lost in transit by the appellant Bank, it would not be liable to make good the loss to the plaintiff. 13. Critical examination of the aforesaid two sections show that they do not confer any right on the Bank to take such a defence. It only means that in case, there are sufficient funds of the Drawer in his account, then, the cheques have to be honoured and amounts shown in the cheques have to be credited to the account of drawee. The aforesaid provisions do not confer any benefit or immunity to the Bank from its liability to pay to the Drawee the value of the cheques. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, reference of the learned counsel for appellant with regard to aforesaid provisions was wholly misconceived and untenable. 14. Then, it was contended by counsel for appellant with regard to gratuitous duty to principal, skill and diligence required from agent. Provisions of section 211 and 212 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were pressed into service. The aforesaid two sections relevant for deciding the said appeal, are mentioned hereinbelow:- 211. 14. Then, it was contended by counsel for appellant with regard to gratuitous duty to principal, skill and diligence required from agent. Provisions of section 211 and 212 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were pressed into service. The aforesaid two sections relevant for deciding the said appeal, are mentioned hereinbelow:- 211. Agent's duty in conducting principal's business.- An agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or in the absence of any such directions according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the place where the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal, and if any profit accrues, he must account for it. 212. Skill and diligence required from agent.- An agent is bound to conduct the business of the agency with as much skill as is generally possessed by persons engaged in similar business unless the principal has notice of his want of skill. The agent is always bound to act with reasonable diligence, and to use such skill as he possesses; and to make compensation to his principal in respect of the direct consequences of his own neglect, want of skill, or misconduct, but not in respect of loss or damage which are indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skill or misconduct. 15. Section 211 of the Contract Act contemplates that an agent is required to conduct the business of its principal according to the direction given by the principal. 16. In the case in hand, there was no such direction given by the principal i.e. Drawee NTC that in case of loss of cheques in transit it shall not be entitled for any compensation. The aforesaid sections further show that in absence of any such directions by the Principal, agent is bound, according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at a place where agent conducts such business. There was no such custom prevalent in such type of business, that in case the cheques are lost by agent, then, agent would not be liable to make good the loss of value of the cheques to the principal. 17. There was no such custom prevalent in such type of business, that in case the cheques are lost by agent, then, agent would not be liable to make good the loss of value of the cheques to the principal. 17. Reading of this section, further shows that if agent acts otherwise, and if any loss be sustained it must make it good to its principal. It is the thus clear in case of loss, agent has to pay to the principal the value of cheques. It further contemplates the amount of skill due diligence required on the part of the agent. Cheques having been lost admittedly while the same were in custody of the Bank, shows that due diligence and proper care was not taken in handling the same. 18. The bank being the custodian of cheques was entrusted with collection of money from its another branch, where, the account of Haider Ali existed. If the cheques were lost during transit, then, obviously and naturally, it will be the liability of the Bank, from where the cheques have been lost to pay to the principal. The principal in that case cannot be asked to file another suit against the Drawer of the cheques, on the basis of lost cheques by seeking permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence. This is certainly not the ambit, scope and purpose of aforesaid sections. 19. Now dealing with the provisions of section 212 of the Contract Act, it was duty of the Bank to have led sufficient evidence that despite observance of due diligence, skill and carefulness, the cheques were still lost. 20. In ordinary course of business, it is the duty of Bank to see to it that the cheques lodged by its customer for collection of money are properly handled and the amount after collection is credited to the account of customer. 21. There is nothing on record to show that after having detected loss of cheques, defendant had taken any steps either to lodge the First Information Report or to proceed further against its erring officials who had dealt with the said cheques belonging to respondent No. 1 and lost in transit. This burden was required to be discharged by appellant Bank. There is nothing on record to show that after having detected loss of cheques, defendant had taken any steps either to lodge the First Information Report or to proceed further against its erring officials who had dealt with the said cheques belonging to respondent No. 1 and lost in transit. This burden was required to be discharged by appellant Bank. Not having done so, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is, that appellant Bank had been careless, negligent and casual in carrying on its business activities, otherwise, there was no reason why as many as 7 cheques of the same party could be lost in transit. This only shows that some of the bank employees must have been hand in glove with the Drawer of the cheques. It may also be pertinent to mention here, that the Drawee of cheques had made attempts to secure fresh cheques for the same amounts from the Drawer once again on the ground that the same have been lost by the Bank but the cool answer of the Drawer was, that he is not bound to give fresh cheques, as his liability stood discharged after issuance of cheques in favour of the Drawee. 22. Under these circumstances, the Drawee of cheques could not have been left in the lurch so as to deprive it of its rightful dues to be collected from Drawer, but, such a right shall always be there against the Bank which had been callous and negligent in performance of its duties. 23. Under these circumstances, both the Bank as well as Drawer would be equally liable to make good the loss of value of the cheques to the Drawee plaintiff. 24. Under the facts and circumstances, setforth above, we are of the opinion that this Appeal has no merits and substance. 25. However, before parting, it may be clarified that on payment being made by the Bank to respondent No. 1 plaintiff of the aforesaid amount under the decree, then, Bank would be still at liberty to recover the same from the Drawee i.e. defendant No. 1, Haider Ali. 26. The Appeal fails and, is, hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 3,000/-, if certified.