Delhi High Court
The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking ... vs Tripat Choudhury on 19 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: II (2006) BC 574
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,74,45,324.49 from the defendant along with pendent lite and future interest @ 19% per annum. The plaintiff has also claimed costs of the suit.
2. The defendant has been proceeded with ex parte by virtue of the order dated 25.08.2004 Thereafter, the plaintiff has led its ex parte evidence by filing an affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr Suhas Bendre s/o late Shri Vinayak Bendre as the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/3 have also been exhibited. All these documents were filed along with the affidavit by way of evidence.
3. Essentially, the case of the plaintiff against the defendant is that the defendant tampered with the accounts of the plaintiff's customers and as a result of which these accounts were defalcated by the defendant. The plaintiff had to make good the amounts which were taken away by the defendant from the plaintiff's customers' accounts and it is on the basis of this loss and damage which has been caused to the plaintiff that this suit for recovery of the said amount has been filed.
4. The details of the fraudulent activities of the defendant have been set out in paragraph 16 of the affidavit which shows that the defendant had indulged in inter-account transfer of money using internal memos, cash withdrawal through forged cheques and counter cheques, fraudulent encashment of time deposits, withdrawal of money from the account of deceased customers, issuance of cashier orders to third parties through forged customer instructions.
5. In paragraph 17 of the said affidavit, it is indicated as to the manner in which the defendant concealed her fraudulent activities from the plaintiff and its customers. The defendant did that by preventing delivery of periodic statements of account and transaction details and by sending false statements of accounts to the customers.
6. It is clearly stated in paragraph 24 that the plaintiff had refunded to its customers a sum of Rs. 1,67,44,775.75. The plaintiff has also indicated that it is liable to refund to its customers a further sum of Rs. 7,00,548.74/-.
The plaintiff has been put to loss insofar as these sums are concerned on account of the fraudulent activities of the defendant for which the defendant is liable to make good to the plaintiff.
7. After having examined the evidence on record as well as the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to establish and prove its case as pleaded and accordingly, it is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs. 1,74,45,324.49. The plaintiff has also been able to establish that it is entitled to interest @ 19% per annum for the period pendente lite and future interest in view of the statements made in paragraph 27 of the said affidavit which indicates that the plaintiff's normal lending rate for clean unsecured advances (the prime lending rate + 4%) currently charged is 19% per annum compounded quarterly. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the said amount for the period pendente lite as well as the future till actual payment @ 19% per annum. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
8. The suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.
