Delhi High Court
Punjab National Bank vs S.P. Dhoot on 13 July, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.460/1998
% 13th July, 2012
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ...... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
S.P. DHOOT ...... Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a suit for recovery of ` 22,53,410/- filed by the plaintiff-bank
in which interest @ 16.85% per annum is also claimed alongwith costs of the suit.
2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant was an
employee of the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank came to know during the course
of tallying the balances on 25.2.1995 a difference of ` 25,000/- in one of the saving
fund ledgers of the plaintiff-bank and it became clear that the defendant was guilty
of defrauding the bank. The defendant is stated to have admitted to the fraud and
promised to repay the amount. Further frauds were subsequently discovered by
the plaintiff-bank on 1.3.1995, 2.3.1995 and so on. The modus operandi of the
CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 1 of 4
defendant was that he opened various fictitious accounts, transferred amounts from
other accounts to these fictitious accounts and made withdrawal from the said
accounts unauthorisedly under his signatures. The details of the fraudulent actions
and accounts opened and operated are given in para 7 of the plaint. The total
amount siphoned by the defendant from the plaintiff was ` 27,85,523. The
defendant, however, deposited a sum of ` 18,12,800/- leaving behind a sum of `
9,40,723/- recoverable from him. It is for this amount alongwith the claim of
interest that the suit has been filed. The plaint was subsequently amended to state
that the payment by the defendant as ` 19,12,800/- i.e. ` 1 lakh more and therefore
the amount due from the defendant would be ` 8,72,723/- alongwith interest @
16.85% per annum.
3. The defendant failed to appear and was therefore proceeded exparte
vide order dated 25.8.1999.
4. Plaintiff-bank has filed affidavits by way of evidence of its various
officers. The affidavits by way of evidence have been filed of Sh. S.K. Sharma
(PW-1), Sh. Dharam Pal (PW-2), Sh. Devi Singh Palia (PW-3) and Smt. Leena
Anand (PW-4).
5. The main affidavit of evidence is of Sh. Devi Singh Palia. Sh. Devi
Singh Palia has deposed to the contents of the plaint and has proved and exhibited
various confession letters of the defendant as Ex.Pw3/1 to Pw3/11. The statements
CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 2 of 4
of account of different persons in fictitious name have been proved and exhibited
as Ex.Pw3/12, Ex.Pw3/13, Ex.Pw3/35 and Ex.Pw3/41 etc. The various cheques
and the corresponding debit vouchers and the related documents by which
defendant withdrew the amounts have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw3/14 to
Ex.Pw3/100.
6. Smt. Leena Anand through her affidavit deposed with respect to
coming to the knowledge of the bank of the frauds committed by the defendant of
opening different accounts. Smt. Leena Anand has proved and exhibited the
accounts of those fictitious persons which are different from the accounts which
have been duly proved and exhibited in the statement of Sh. Devi Singh Palia. The
statement of account of Sh. Ajay Mohan is proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw4/1 and
the cheque alongwith related debit vouchers have been proved and exhibited as
Ex.Pw4/2 to Ex.Pw4/4. Similarly, other accounts, cheques and vouchers have
been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw4/5 to Ex.Pw4/59.
7. Sh. S.K. Sharma has proved and exhibited the power of attorney as
Ex.Pw1/1 to file the suit. Statement of account has been proved and exhibited as
Ex.Pw1/3, legal notice has been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/4 and the
corresponding postal receipts/AD cards are proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/5 to
Ex.Pw1/16. The challans and F.I.R. lodged against the defendant have been
proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/17 and Ex.Pw1/18.
CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 3 of 4
8. Sh. Dharam Pal has also proved and exhibited the power of attorney
in his favour as Ex.Pw2/1 and his signatures on the amended plaint which have
been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw2/2.
9. The original documents are with the police authorities and therefore
since the absence of the originals have been explained for, I allow the plaintiff to
lead the secondary evidence which has been filed in this case.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum
of ` 8,72,723/- alongwith interest @ 16.85% per annum simple from 1.10.1993 till
the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff will be entitled to the same rate of interest of
16.85% per annum simple pendente lite and future till realization against the
defendant. Plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.
JULY 13, 2012 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
