December 1972 BOOK REVIEWS 333
To start with, there is the controversial ruling in United Dominions Trust v.
Kirkwood [1966] 2 Q.B. 431, which deals with the fundamental concepts of “bank”
and “banking business”. It is interesting to note in that case that emphasis was
made on the acceptance of deposits, and the question of whether the payment and
collection of cheques was essential for banking business, was left undecided by Lord
Denning, M.R. The above decision is however unique in that an institution which
hardly qualified as bankers was held to be so by Lord Denning, M.R., simply because
they have been accepted as bankers by intelligent men of commerce. The treatment
of the above case by the authors of this edition, is indeed commendable.
The ever-recurring question of negligence of the collecting and paying banks
is also brought up-to-date by extensive comments on such leading cases as Marfani v.
Midland Bank (1968) 1 Lloyds Rep. 411; Lumsden and Co. v. London Trustee Savings
Bank (1971) 1 Lloyds Rep. 114; Barclays Bank v. Astley Industrial Ltd. [1970] 2
Q.B. 527; Barclays Bank v. Aschaffenburger Zellstofwerke A.G. (1967) 1 Lloyds
Rep. 387.
At the same time, it appears that there are one or two shortcomings in the
treatment of recent cases, especially where new ideas or principles are involved.
One such example is the concept of “constructive trustee” of a bank, under which
a customer can proceed in equity. Thus, although the cases of Selangor United
Rubber Estates v. Craddock [1968] 2 All E.R. 1073, and Karak Rubber Co. Ltd. v.
Burden [1971] 3 All E.R. 1118 are mentioned in several places in this edition, their
contribution to the equitable concept of “constructive trustee” and the serious effects
it may have on banking practice, are hardly dealt with. Another example is the
treatment accorded to Barclays Bank v. Okenarhe [1966] 2 Lloyds Rep. 87, which
merely receives a fleeting mention under “The deposit account”, while no mention
is made of it in the section on “Combination of accounts” — to which subject, it is
also relevant.
Without in any way appearing to be chauvinistic, one must also express dis-
appointment in that no important Singapore/Malaysian cases have yet been noted
or commented upon in the book, though cases from Australia, Canada, Ceylon and
other places have received recognition.
On the whole, however, the present authors of Paget are to be congratulated
for an excellent effort in bringing the book up-to-date and in incorporating as many
new cases as possible.
M YINT SOE
MY LIFE, LAW AND OTHER THINGS. By M.C. Setalvad. [London: Sweet
& Maxwell. 1971. xi + 636 pp. Including Index].
This book written by the first Attorney-General of Independent India, and one
who occupied that prestigous position for fifteen years, does initiate the reader
into many facets of the three topics covered by the title.
The book not only covers matters which took place after Mr. Stevalvad took
office as Attorney-General, but also deals to a considerable extent with matters
preceding that period. Therefore, in a sense, the book is also an “autobiography”
of Mr. Setalvad. We are given a good glimpse of his background and personal
life as well as his many experiences.
To those interested in law as such, especially Constitutional Law, Mr. Setalvad’s
account of the many important cases in which he took part is most instructive.
Among the many notable cases dealt with by him are In Re Delhi Laws Act, 1912
(1951) S.C.R. 747; State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) S.C.R. 682; Ram
Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1959) S.C.R. 279; In Re The Kerala
Education Bill, 1957 (1959) S.C.R. 995; In Re The Berabari Union (1960) 3. S.C.R.
334 MALAYA LAW REVIEW Vol. 14 No. 2
250; Director of Rationing v. Corporation of Calcutta (1961) 1. S.C.R. 158; K.M.
Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1961) 1. S.C.R. 497, and Naresh Mirajkar v. State
of Maharashtra (1966) 3. S.C.R. 744.
The value in reading about these cases as dealt with by him, is that they
sometimes bring out or illuminate points which cannot be found by reading the
law reports. The case of Nanavati (supra) is a good example. Most students of
criminal law are aware of that case in which Nanavati, a Commander in the Indian
Navy, killed the lover of his British wife. It is one of the modern cases decided
by the Indian Supreme Court on the law relating to provocation. But few would
be cognisant of the constitutional aspects of the Nanavati case, especially the inter-
vention by the executive on behalf of the unfortunate Commander. Mr. Setalvad
gives us a good and reliable account of these aspects.
To the student of International law, Mr. Setalvand’s treatment of International
Organs and International Conferences, should be a source of some delight and
instruction. In particular, his account of the various “Afro-Asian” Conferences
on International law, gives us an idea of the workings of those conferences, as Mr.
Setalvad was most closely associated with them. His account of his experience
with the International Court of Justice with regard to the Goa issue, is also most
interesting. We are let into a little secret about the Court, namely that a speech
in the French language carries great weight in that Court. Thus, India had to
engage a French lawyer, although she already had the services of not only Mr.
Setalvad, but also that of Sir Frank Soskice, a former British Attorney-General,
and who according to Mr. Setalvad was “silver tongued”.
Finally the book gives us glimpses of certain well known personalities on the
Indian scene like Pandit Nehru, Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Krishna Menon. One feels
sorry to read about the misunderstanding between Mr. Nehru and Mr. Setalvad,
which probably had something to do with the resignation of Mr. Setalvad as Attorney-
General.
All in all, Mr. Setalvad’s book is not only instructive to the student of law in
many respects, but also constitutes delightful reading as well. It should also commend
itself to those members of the legal profession who are still interested in picking
up a little more law, particularly Constitutional law and International law.
MYINT SOE
LAW AND PRACTICE OF BANKING IN MALAYSIA. By Philip M.K. Leong.
[Kuala Lumpur: Sharikat Bonne Nouvelle. 1970. xiv + 578 pp.
M$21.00].
This book which is so far the most extensive work on the law and practice of
Banking in Malaysia, is most welcome not only to students and practitioners in
Malaysia, but also to students and practitioners in Singapore as well. This is because,
both the English and Malaysian case law quoted therein, as well as a good deal
of the statute law referred to is relevant to Singapore banking law.
There are, of course, differences here and there between Malaysian banking
law and Singapore banking law. For example, in Malaysia, there is the Central
Bank called the Bank Negara. In Singapore we have the Monetary Authority
Singapore, which is almost a Central Bank, but has no note-issuing functions like
the Bank Negara. The Singapore Banking Act of 1970, although similar to the
Banking Act of Malaysia, differs from it in some significant respects. Bearing
such differences in mind, the enquiring student of banking in Singapore should
find the book useful.
