Delhi High Court
Dr. C.S.Kakkar vs Union Bank Of India on 16 September, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
+ RFA 336/2008 & CM No.11809/2008
Dr. C.S. KAKKAR ..... Appellant
through: Nemo
VERSUS
UNION BANK OF INDIA ...... Respondent
through:Nemo
DATE OF DECISION:
% 16.9.2008
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. None appears for the appellant at the first hearing.
None appears for the appellant even at the second hearing.
2. Trial Court Record was requisitioned for today.
3. We are prima facie of the view that the appellant is
intending to delay the proceedings and keep alive a dead
cause. We note that on 20.8.208 dasti notice was required to
be taken out for service of the respondent returnable for today.
4. We note that the appeal has been filed belatedly by
six days. Reason why we feel that the appellant is desirous of
keeping alive a dead cause is that the appellant had pleaded in
the suit that two cheques bearing No.476100 and 518661 were
interpolated and that the bankers, Union Bank of India on
whom the cheques were drawn, allowed encashment of the
cheques resulting in a huge loss to the appellant.
5. It was claimed by the appellant that he was desirous
of availing a loan from ICICI Bank and had handed over the two
cheques to one Anand the Agent of ICICI Bank. He stated that
the name of ICICI Bank in whose favour the cheques were
issued was raised and name of ABN Amro Bank was
interpolated on the cheques. He stated that the cheques were
encashed by ABN Amro Bank and since the cheques were not
credited to the account of ICICI Bank the said Bank did not
process his loan application. It was pleaded that the two
cheques were issued as processing fee for availing loan facility
from ICICI Bank.
6. The learned Trial Judge has found no interpolation
on any cheque.
7. The Trial Court Record reveals that the cheques in
question in sum of Rs.12,400/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively have
been issued in the name of one Yogesh and refer to his account
number. To clarify the payee of the two cheques is described
as under:-
"A/c No.II 993259 c/o Yogesh Chandra Srivastav"
8. The cheques proved as Ex. PW-1/D-1 had been
deposited with ABN Amro Bank. The said fact is evident from
the stamp of the said bank at the rear of the cheques when the
same were presented for clearing.
9. To the naked eye it is evident that no interpolation
has been made on either cheque against the name of the
payee.
10. It is wrongly stated in the plaint that the cheques
were issued in favour of ICICI Bank and the name of the payee
was interpolated to ABN Amro Bank.
11. The cheques show that they were issued in the
name of Yogesh and specifically record the account number of
Yogesh in which the cheques have to be credited.
12. It is apparent that somebody has cheated the
appellant by posing to be the agent of ICICI Bank. The remedy
of the appellant, is against the said imposter.
13. The suit against the Union Bank of India could have
succeeded only if it was established that there was an
interpolation on the two cheques.
14. Be that as it may since none appears for the
appellant at the hearing today and we find that there is a
default in affecting service upon the respondent we dismiss the
appeal for non-prosecution.
15. Trial Court Record may be returned forthwith.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
September 16, 2008
rk
