Uco Bank vs M/S. Joshika Agencies
2010 Latest Caselaw 5698 Del

 *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



 +                       RFA No.316/1997

 %                                               14th December, 2010



 UCO BANK                                                ...... Appellant


                                      Through:   Nemo.
                         VERSUS


 M/S. JOSHIKA AGENCIES                                .... Respondents

Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By the present appeal, the appellant/defendant seeks to challenge the

impugned judgment and decree dated 12.8.1997 passed by the trial court

whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.26,080/-

with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 12% per annum pendent

lite and future till realization was decreed.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for

recovery on account of the fact that the appellant-Bank wrongly debited the

amount of Rs.24,000/- in its account. Ordinarily, banks debit an account by

means of cheques or other printed forms, however, in this case, debit was

stated to be done on the basis of a letter `Exb.PW-1/2' dated 19.9.1969.

3. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed issues and

the main issues were issues No.1 and 2 which read as under:-

"1. Whether there was no authority from the pltff. To the defendant to transfer the sum of Rs.24,000/- to M/s. Plastikot (Sundersons) Industries? If so, its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the transfer of the amount was made in the normal course of Banking Business? If so, its effect?

4. With regard to these issues, the trial court has after detailed analysis

arrived at a conclusion that this letter was not issued by the respondent to

the appellant-Bank for debiting of the account. The trial court has relied

upon the report submitted by the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory which

opined that the signatures in the disputed letter by which debit was made in

the account were not the signatures of the partner of the respondent. The

trial court disbelieved the report of a private handwriting expert of the

appellant-Bank. The trial court has also referred to the letter issued by the

Bank to its higher office in which it is stated that this debit was done without

necessary authority.

5. Sitting as an appellate court, I would not like to interfere with the clear,

categorical and exhaustive findings and conclusions have been arrived at by

the trial court. There is no illegality or perversity entitling this Court to

interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

DECEMBER 14, 2010                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J
vk