State Bank Of India vs Shri Shambhu Dayal Verma
2010 Latest Caselaw 4804 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                 Date of Judgment : 18th October, 2010


+                        RSA NO.84/1999

STATE BANK OF INDIA                        ............Appellant

                   Through:    Mr.Sanjev    Kakra    &        Mr.Kartik
                               Nagarkatti, Advocate.
             Versus


SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL VERMA                   ............Respondent.

                   Through:    None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

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

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  Yes

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

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated

6.3.1999 which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated

27.2.1987 whereby the defendant/appellant i.e. State Bank of India

and their agents were restrained from deducting any amount from

the salary of the plaintiff towards the payment of the amount

outstanding in the debt of the son of the plaintiff.


2.     The plaintiff Shambhu Dayal Verma was employed with the

State Bank of India at the Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi.

His son Sunil Dutt Verma had opened a current account with the

Jaipur Branch of the State Bank of India; he had taken an overdraft

in the said current account. Sunil Dutt Verma, had failed to make

the payment in the overdraft facility availed of by him.              The

RSA No.84/1999                                         Page 1 of 4
 defendant i.e.the State Bank of India had pressurized the plaintiff

that the amount due against his son would be adjusted against the

salary due to the plaintiff.           The plaintiff had agreed to pay an

amount of Rs.25225.65 in instalments but on the undertaking that

no interest should be charged. The bank started deducting a sum

of Rs.250/- per month from his salary. The defendant i.e. the State

Bank of India without confirming the waiver of interest continued

to deduct this amount from the salary of the plaintiff. Legal notice

dated 25.10.1983 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant

informing him that the interest had not been waived; but to no

avail.       Present suit for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant bank from deducting this amount was accordingly filed.


3.       Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.                The

first Appellate Court endorsed this finding. The finding had been

answered while dealing with the three issues which had been

framed by the Trial Judge.              The said finding in the impugned

judgment had been returned as follows:


         ".............Apparently the argument of the defendant/appellant is
         based upon the document on the Ex.PD-3,PD-4, DW/P-2 given by
         the plaintiff. The case of the appellant is that these undertaking is
         based on the PD-3, PD-4 and DW/P-2.           The counsel for the
         appellant has argued that the plaintiff has given these undertaking
         voluntarily without any pressure so he can not claim any relief of
         injunction restraining the defendant/appellant to deduct the
         amount from the salary. I have gone through the main document
         relied by the counsel for the defendant Ex.PD-4 which reads as
         under:-

                The Chief Manager,
                State Bank of India, New Delhi
                Main Branch




RSA No.84/1999                                                    Page 2 of 4
              Dear Sir,
             Personal    market    segment   overdraft    in   current    A/C
             No.12/18098 in the name of Sh.Sunil Dutt Verma.


             With reference to my discussions with Manager (Accounts),
             New Delhi Main Branch. I confirm as under:-
             1. I agree to the bank recording alien on my provident fund
             balances including Bank's contribution in respect of the
             amount due to the bank from the current A/C No.12/18098
             in the name Sh.Sunil Dutt Verma at Jaipur Branch.
             2. I agree to increase the instalment of the        repayment
             Rs.300/- immediately and Rs.400/- after 6 months and
             Rs.500/- p.m. after another 6 months.
             As already requested by me to the bank I again request that
             no interest should be charged on the overdraft.


             Yours Faithfully,
             (SHAMBHU DAYAL)
             Clerk S.B.I. N.D. main branch
             Dt.17.10.83


      7.     It is established on the record that in the undertaking, it is
      categorically mentioned that no interest should be charged from
      the plaintiff. Thus the defendant/appellant can not be permitted to
      deduct the amount contrary to the undertaking. I agree with the
      ld. trial court where it is held that there is no privity of contract
      between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further evident from
      the record that the undertaking was given by the plaintiff in which
      he was agreeable to take the liability of his son subject to the
      condition that if interest is waived.     The power to waive the
      interest is admittedly with the bank the bank failed to waive the
      interest but if in the undertaking the plaintiff was not agreeable to
      pay the interest the same could not be deducted from his salary
      therefore the plaintiff was entitled for the injunction prayed for."



4.    This is a second appeal. After its admission, two substantial

questions of law were formulated on 28.2.2000, they read as

follows:

      "1. Whether there was breach of any obligation by the
      appellant as against the respondent entitling the respondent to
      seek perpetual injunction?




RSA No.84/1999                                                   Page 3 of 4
        2. Whether it could be said that the appellant had waived his
      right to claim interest on the amount which the respondent had
      undertaken to pay?"

5.    Both these substantial questions of law have been answered

in the finding in the impugned judgment. These findings call for no

interference.    The plaintiff had voluntarily undertaken to get the

outstanding amount due from his son to be deducted from his

salary; in this voluntarily undertaking which had been furnished by

the plaintiff, it had been mentioned that no interest should be

charged from the plaintiff; the defendant bank was thus estopped

from deducting this amount which is clearly contrary to this

undertaking furnished by the plaintiff.         The defendant bank was

acting upon this undertaking in terms of which the amount was

being deducted from the salary of the plaintiff;                   the same

undertaking had also clearly stated that the interest would not be

charged from the plaintiff; in these circumstances, the defendant

bank was rightly restrained from deducting interest from the salary

account of the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of the two courts

below do not call for any interference.           They cannot be in any

manner said to be perverse.          The appeal has no merit.             It is

dismissed.


                                               INDERMEET KAUR, J.

OCTOBER 18, 2010 nandan