Karnataka High Court
State Bank Of India vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 28 June, 2021
Author: S. Sujatha E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.495 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
State Bank of India
Mission Road Branch
(Formerly State Bank of Saurashtra)
Bangalore
...Appellant
(By Shri Brijesh Chander Guru, Advocate)
AND:
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Plant
Bhadravathi
Having its Registered office
At Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110 003
(Formerly Visvesvaraya Iron &
Steel Ltd.)
Having its Registered Office
At New Town, Bhadravathi.
2. Shri B R Mehta
Major, Proprietor
OM Padmavathi Industries
2
26, 8th Cross, 2nd Block
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 011.
...Respondents
(By Shri K Sachindra Karanth, Advocate for R1;
Vide Order dated 04.04.2016 notice to R2 is held sufficient)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated
17.11.2011 passed in OS. No.15 of 1993 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravati, decreeing the suit for recovery
of money.
In this appeal arguments being heard, judgment reserved,
coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, INDIRESH J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by defendant No.2-State Bank of
India (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), challenging
the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 2011 passed in
Original Suit No.15 of 1993 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bhadravati, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
money came to be decreed in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal
are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts, for the purpose of adjudication of this
appeal are that, the original plaintiff-Visweswaraiah Iron and Steel
Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Company') had
supplied alloys and special steel to the defendant No.1. The
defendant No.1 satisfied the claim in part raised through invoices
by the plaintiff at Bhadravati, Pune and Madras. It is further
averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1 has made part
payment to the plaintiff-Company in respect of certain invoices
raised and was due to satisfy the entire claim. In this regard, the
defendant No.1 agreed to pay interest at the rate of 17.50% per
annum for delay of thirty days and thereafter, at the rate of 24%
per annum and therefore, the defendant No.1 was liable to pay
Rs.41,98,102/-. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant
No.1 had furnished bank guarantee on 11th May, 1991 (No.1 of
1991-92) in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and another Bank guarantee
on 11th September, 1991 (No.9 of 1991-92) to an extent of
Rs.21,00,000/- issued by State Bank of Saurashtra, Mission Road,
Bangalore (now merged with State Bank of India, the appellant
herein). The plaintiff-Company accepting the aforementioned two
bank guarantees, released goods in favour of the defendant No.1.
In the aforementioned two bank guarantees, the defendant No.2-
Bank has agreed to pay interest to the plaintiff. It is the case of
the plaintiff-company that it is entitled for the amount due and the
Bank Guarantees have been duly invoked in accordance with the
policy of the Bank and as such, averred in the plaint, that the
defendant No.2-Bank is liable to honour those two bank
guarantees. In this regard, the plaintiff-Company addressed letter
to the defendant No.2-Bank with regard to invoking bank
guarantees to which the defendant No.2-Bank responded that
both the bank guarantees have been forged and that the bank
guarantees issued by the Bank was for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
and for Rs.1,00,000/-, and as such, since there is an element of
fraud involved in those bank guarantees, it informed the plaintiff-
company that the amount specified in those two bank guarantees
cannot be invoked. On receipt of the reply made by the
defendant No.2-Bank, the plaintiff-company averred in the plaint
that the officials of the Bank had colluded with the defendant
No.1, while preparing the bank guarantees and the alleged
alterations made in those two bank guarantees, as stated by the
defendant No.2-Bank, is illegal and therefore, the defendants are
jointly and severally liable to satisfy the suit claim. In this
backdrop of circumstances narrated above, the plaintiff-company
caused legal notice to the defendants on 01st March, 1993 and the
defendant No.1 failed to reply to the same. Being aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the defendants to satisfy the claim
made therein, the plaintiff-company was constrained to register a
suit for recovery of sum of Rs.42,29,454/- with interest.
4. On service of summons, defendants entered appearance
and filed detailed written statement. The defendant No.1
contended that the suit claim made by the plaintiff-Company is
without any basis and same is liable to be rejected. The
defendant No.1 admits that he had furnished the bank guarantee
on 11th May, 1991 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and not
Rs.12,00,000/- and the defendant No.1 further admits that
another bank guarantee was furnished by him on 11th September,
1991 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and not for Rs.21,00,000/-, as
mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The defendant No.1 took
a contention that he had given sealed cover containing bank
guarantees issued by the defendant No.2-Bank to the Plaintiff-
company and therefore, there was no necessity for tampering
bank guarantees. It is further stated in the written statement that
there was no order to supply materials by defendant No.1 to the
plaintiff-company at Bhadravati with respect to items No.1 to 13
mentioned at paragraph 4 of the plaint. The defendant No.1
denied the averment made in the plaint with regard to supply of
all 23 items of invoice said to have been supplied to him and as
such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant No.2-Bank filed detailed written
statement denying the plaint averments. It is its defence that it
has not issued bank guarantee No.1 of 1991-92 dated 11th May,
1991 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and another bank guarantee
No.9 of 1991-92 dated 11th September, 1991 for a sum of
Rs.21,00,000/- as stated in the plaint. It is the categorical
statement made by the defendant No.1 in the written statement
that it has issued bank guarantee No.1 of 1991-92 for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- and Bank guarantee No.9 of 1991-92 for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- only. The defendant No.2-Bank came to know
about the fraud and forgery with regard to the Bank guarantees
mentioned above and the same was intimated to the plaintiff-
Company. The defendant No.2-Bank issued notice to the plaintiff-
company with regard to alleged forgery in the bank guarantees.
It is further stated in the written statement that since the bank
guarantees were forged and there is material alteration made
illegally in the bank guarantees, the question of any liability to be
fastened on the defendant No.2, does not arise. It is further
averred in the written statement that unless the plaintiff-company
establishes that the bank guarantees have been invoked in terms
of policy entered into therein, the plaintiff-company is not entitled
to any amount from the defendant No.2-Bank under the bank
guarantees. The defendant No.2-Bank denied the averments
made in the plaint that bank guarantees have been altered by the
officials of the bank in collusion with the defendant No.1 and
stated that the original bank guarantees were in the custody of
the plaintiff-company and the plaintiff-company keeping quiet for
more than two years before invoking the aforementioned two
bank guarantees despite many of the bills being unpaid, would
indicate the collusion between the plaintiff-company and
defendant No.1 and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings on record,
framed the following issues for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff company proves that it has
supplied alloys and special steel in pursuance of
agreement between plaintiff and the defendant No.1
between 06.06.1991 to 25.05.1992 amounting to
Rs.30,85,236.00?
2. Whether the plaintiff company further proves that the
defendant No.1 has furnished the bank guarantees
bearing No.1/91-92 for a sum of Rs.12 lakh dated
11.05.1991 and bank guarantee No.9/91-92 for a sum of
Rs.21 lakhs dated 11.09.1991 issued by the defendant
No.2 for supply of materials from the plaintiff Company to
the defendant No.1?
3. Whether plaintiff company further proves that the
defendant No.1 and 2 have agreed to pay interest as per
the terms of the bank guarantees?
4. Whether plaintiff further proves that as the defendant
No.1 failed to pay the value of the materials supplied, the
defendant No.2 has became liable for the amount claimed
against defendant in terms of bank guarantees?
5. Whether the defendant 1 and 2 prove that both bank
grantees issued by the defendant No.2 were forged and
materially altered to read as 12 lakhs and 21 lakhs
respectively with regard to bank guarantee No.1/91-92
and 9/91?
6. Whether plaintiff company further proves that the bank
authorities in collusion with defendant No.1 effected
material alterations in the bank guarantees dated
11.05.1991 and 11.09.1991?
7. Whether plaintiff further proves that bank guarantees
are enforceable as against defendant No.2 as contended
in the plaint?
8. Whether plaintiff Company is entitled for the relief
sought for?
9. What order or decree?"
7. The case was set down for trial. The plaintiff-company
got examined its Senior Manager as PW1 and another witness as
PW2 and produced 143 documents and same were marked as
Exhibits P1 to P143. The defendant No.2-Bank got examined four
witnesses as DW1 to DW4 and got marked nine documents as
Exhibits D1 to D4. The trial Court, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17th November,
2011, decreed the suit with cost and ordered that the plaintiff-
company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,29,454/- with
future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit
till realisation from the defendants No.1 and 2, jointly and
severally. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court, defendant No2-Bank has preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard Sri Brijesh Chander Guru, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-Defendant No.2 and Sri
Sachindra Karanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1-plaintiff.
9. Sri Brijesh Chander Guru, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-Bank argued that the trial Court ought to have
noticed the material alteration in the commercial document, i.e.
bank guarantees which would invalidate the same and therefore,
the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit only against the
defendant No.1 to satisfy the suit claim and absolved defendant
No.2-Bank from satisfying the claim. He further contended that,
the trial Court erred in answering issue No.2 affirmatively in
favour of the plaintiff-company holding that the plaintiff company
has proved that the defendant No.1 has furnished the disputed
bank guarantees for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.21,00,000/-
respectively, even though issue No.6 has been held affirmatively
with regard to the material alteration in the bank guarantees
dated 11th May, 1991 and 11th September, 1991. He also
contended that the plaintiff-company and defendant No.1 secretly
entering into a settlement for part payment behind the back of the
defendant No.2-Bank and withdrawing the criminal cases filed by
the plaintiff-company against the defendant No.1 coupled with
loss of records pertaining to the aforementioned bank guarantees,
would establish that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 colluded with
each other. He also argued that the defendant No.1 stated in his
written statement that the bank guarantee issued was for
Rs.2,00,000/- and not Rs.12,00,000/-; and for another
transaction, it is for Rs.1,00,000/- and not for Rs.21,00,000/- and
this aspect of the admission of defendant No.1 was not properly
appreciated by the trial Court. He further contended that, the
defendant No.2-Bank has lodged complaint with the S.J. Park
Police Station, Bangalore (Exhibit D2) regarding alterations made
in the bank guarantees and thereafter, the defendant No.2-Bank
has addressed letter to the Commissioner of Police vide Exhibit D4
and pursuant to the same, investigation was conducted by the
Police Inspector, Kalasipalyam and the Bank guarantees were lost
during the course of police investigation. This aspect of the
matter was not properly dealt with by the learned Judge, while
decreeing the suit. Emphasising on these aspects, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the provisions contained under Section 87 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 133, 134
and 135 of the Contract Act, 1872 and thereby, he argued that
the plaintiff-company has filed suit with an intention to make
unjust claim from the defendant No.2-Bank.
10. The appellant-Bank has filed application under Order XLI
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and produced certain
documents for consideration in this appeal. It is the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant that these documents are found
in the strong room of the appellant-Bank, subsequent to the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further argued
that documents referred to in the said application are relevant for
the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. Accordingly, learned
counsel for the appellant-Bank sought for interference of this
Court with regard to the impugned judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, by allowing the application.
11. Per contra, Sri Sachindra Karanth, learned counsel for
the respondent-plaintiff argued that it is not in dispute that the
plaintiff-company had supplied materials to the defendant No.1
and in this regard, he drew the attention of the Court to the
written statement filed by the defendant No.1 and submitted that
since the material has been supplied to the defendant No.1, the
claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 is just and
proper. He further contended that the plaintiff-company had
released the materials based on the two bank guarantees issued
by the defendant No.2-Bank and further, the plaintiff-company
came to know about the alleged material alterations made in the
bank guarantees, pursuant to the letter addressed by the
defendant No.2-Bank to the plaintiff-company and as such, he
submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court fastening
liability on both defendants No.1 and 2, jointly and severally is in
accordance with law and cannot be disturbed in this appeal.
12. In the light of these arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points
would arise for our consideration:
1. "Whether the plaintiff company is entitled for the
relief sought for in the suit;
2. Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court
fastening liability on both the defendants jointly
and severally is just and proper?
3. What order?"
13. Perusal of the record would indicate that the plaintiff-
company had supplied materials to the defendant No.1 based on
the invoices raised, and the total outstanding was about
Rs.30,85,236/-. The plaintiff-company released the materials
based on the bank guarantees furnished vide No.1 of 1991-92
dated 11th May, 1991 for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and another bank
guarantee vide No.9 of 1991-92 for sum of Rs.21,00,000/- dated
11th September, 1991 issued by defendant No.2-Bank.
Thereafter, the plaintiff-company received letter from the
defendant No.2-Bank, wherein it was stated that there is material
alteration in the bank guarantees and the defendant No.2-Bank
further contended that the aforementioned two bank guarantees
were issued for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and not
for Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.21,00,000/- respectively. This has
resulted in filing of suit making claim against defendants. In this
regard, we have carefully considered the written statement made
by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has admitted that he
has furnished bank guarantee for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.1,00,000/- and not for Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.21,00,000/-
respectively. In this regard, both the plaintiff company and the
defendant No.2-Bank have made allegations against each other,
alleging the involvement of the officials of the respective
institutions. Perusal of Exhibits P11 to P18 substantiate that the
goods were delivered to defendant No.1 and the said aspect is not
disputed by either of the defendants. In order to ascertain as to
whether the bank guarantees were forged, alternatively, whether
there is material alternation in the bank guarantees, we have
carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW1 and DWs.1 and 2. It is
not in dispute that the plaintiff-company invoked original bank
guarantees and same was sent to the defendant No.2-Bank for
verification. Pursuant to the letter Exhibit-D6 dated 13th August,
1992 addressed by the Kalasipalya Police Station, original bank
guarantees were seized by the police authorities for investigation
and as such, the defendant No.2 has produced the office copy of
the complaint at Exhibits D2 and D4. Undisputably, the original
bank guarantees were not produced before the trial Court and
thereby, the said documents were reconstructed on the basis of
the certified copy and the photo copy furnished by the plaintiff-
Company. Perusal of the record would indicate that before re-
construction of two bank guarantees, trial Court has directed both
plaintiff and defendants to furnish the copies of the bank
guarantees and pursuant to the same, only the plaintiff-company
had produced the certified copy of the bank guarantee. We have
also noticed that, the appellant-Bank has objected for marking of
the certified copy of the bank guarantees by the plaintiff-company
as per Exhibits P4 and P5 and the appellant-Bank has produced
the bank guarantees as per Exhibits D8 and D9. We have noticed,
discrepancy in the bank guarantees. It is the clear case of
defendant No.2-Bank that bank guarantees were tampered. The
trial Court fastened the liability on the defendant No.2-Bank only
on the ground that the defendant No.2-Bank has not produced the
application from the person who intends to purchase the bank
guarantee as a security for his transaction and in the instant case
the defendant No.1, so also, the defendant No.2-Bank has not
produced the document to show that they have issued
confirmation letter or the copy of bank guarantees to the plaintiff-
company. The trial Court accepts the evidence of PW1, which
corroborates from Exhibit P3, the certified copy issued by the
Court and arrived at a conclusion that there are no signs of
tampering of the document. The said finding recorded by the trial
Court at paragraph 17 of the judgment relating to issues No.2, 3,
5 and 6 is just and proper and same cannot be faulted with and
therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff
is entitled for realisation of the outstanding amount, keeping in
view of delivery of material to the defendant No.1 is affirmed,
accordingly point No.1 framed in this appeal is answered in favour
of the plaintiff-company.
14. Insofar as answering point No.2 with regard to holding
joint liability on the defendants No.1 and 2 is concerned, the
finding recorded by the trial Court requires to be modified. In this
regard, we have carefully considered the documents on record.
The plaintiff-company and defendant No.1 have entered into
compromise and pursuant to the same, the plaintiff-company has
received an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- from the defendant No.1
and the said transaction was admitted by the plaintiff-company.
Insofar as the said compromise arrived at between plaintiff-
company and defendant No.1 is concerned, the defendant No.2-
Bank is not even a party to the compromise and same was not
informed by the plaintiff-company nor the defendant No.1 before
entering into such compromise and therefore, we find some force
in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the compromise made by the plaintiff-company and the
defendant No.1 was behind the back of the defendant No.2-Bank
and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, as there are
allegations of material alteration in the bank guarantees and it
was under investigation by the police authorities; and the said
investigation was made at the instance of the defendant No.2-
Bank to discern the truth. The transactions, which were the
subject matter in the compromise between the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 is also subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff-
company, as per letter dated 29th January, 2000-Exhibit P23
addressed to defendant No.1, allowed the defendant No.1 to
collect the original cheques which are said to have been the
subject matter in four criminal cases viz. Criminal Appeal No.252
of 1999; Criminal Appeal No.299 of 1999; CC No.15043 of 1998
and Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2000 filed by plaintiff company
before this Court against the order of acquittal. We have carefully
examined the letter dated 29th January, 2000 Exhibit P23.
Undisputably, the said letter was addressed only to defendant
No.1, however, the plaintiff-company had not even marked a copy
of the same to the defendant No.2-Bank. Exhibit P15 is the
settlement arrived at between the defendant No.1 and the
plaintiff-company was for sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. In this regard,
it is useful to extract the deposition made by PW1 in examination-
in-chief, which reads as follows:
"I submit that after the institution of this suit,
Defendant -1, through his brother-in-law named D B
Kataria Jain, approached the plaintiff proposing a
settlement of the suit claim out of Court as also other
criminal cases instituted by the Plaintiff against him. The
said proposal was accepted conditionally. In term of the
said settlement, it was agreed that against payment of
Rs.19 lacs by Defendant -1 towards this suit claims,
Plaintiff would withdraw the criminal cases filed against
Defendant-1 for dishonour of cheques and cheating etc.,
which were pending before the Hon'ble Courts of Law in
Bangalore City and that this suit would be continued for
recovery of the balance amount after adjustment of Rs.19
lacs.
Pursuant to the said settlement, Defendant-1 has
paid a sum of Rs.19 lacs on 29.01.2000 vide DDs drawn
on Indian Bank, Canara Bank and United Western Bank
Limited. After adjustment of Rs.19 lacs from and out of
the suit claim, the Defendants are due are liable to pay
the balance sum amounting to Rs.74,06,660.00."
15. The cross-examination of PW1 reads thus:
"£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À vÀ¥ÀÄà ºÉÆgÀ§gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. J£ÀÄߪÀ
©üÃw¬ÄAzÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÝ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï
¥ÀæPÀgÀt »AzÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
16. In furtherance of the same, it is also useful to refer to
the examination-in-chief of PW2, which reads thus:
"It is submitted that the Plaintiff had lodged
complaint to the jurisdictional Kalasipalyam Police,
Bangalore against the Defendant-1 and also had initiated
proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act against the Defendant-1. During the pendency of
these proceedings, Defendant-1 offered to make a down
payment of Rs.19 lacs upon condition that the criminal
cases initiated against Defendant-1 should be withdrawn.
The Plaintiff Company, after due deliberation, agreed to
withdraw only the criminal cases filed against Defendant-
1 against payment of Rs.19 lacs towards part satisfaction
of the suit claim and to continue this suit for recovery of
the balance sum. Accordingly, Defendant-1 had remitted
a sum of Rs.19 lacs on 29.01.2000."
17. In the cross-examination, PW2 deposed as follows:
"ZÉPï CªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÀ¯Á¹¥Á¼Àå
¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢
¥ÀÆgÉʹzÀÝ ¨ÁåAPï UÁågÀAn ¥sÉÆÃdðj ªÀiÁrzÀÝ zÁR¯É JAzÀÄ
UÉÆvÁÛzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÉà ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¥sÉÆÃdðj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢
¥ÀgÀªÁV AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉýzÀgÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¥sÉÆÃdðj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ gÀÆ. 19 ®PÀë ¥ÁªÀw
ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ »AzÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÉà jÃw ZÉPï
CªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ »AzÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉ. ¥sÉÆÃdðj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPï CªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ²PÉë DzÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ CxÀªÁ DUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà gÁfAiÀiÁV CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »AzÉ
¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÆqÀ£É ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ
ªÀiÁr gÀÆ.19 ®PÀëPÉÌ gÁfAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ. 19
®PÀëPÉÌ gÁfà ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ©.PÉ.ªÀÄÆwð J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï EzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è »jAiÀÄ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï AiÀiÁjzÀÝgÀÄ
JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
18. PW2 further deposed that:
"¤.¦-19 gÀAvÉ gÁfà ¸ÀAzsÁ£ÀPÉÌ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ §AzÀ
«µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ w½¹zÉAiÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÆqÀ£É gÀÆ. 19 ®PÀëPÉÌ gÁfÃ
ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ
w½¹zÉAiÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. gÀÆ. 19
®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è »AzÉ
¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ «µÀAiÀÄ
w½¹zÉAiÉÆà ºÉÃUÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦- 3
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 ¥sÉÆÃdðj ªÀiÁrzÀ zÁR¯É JAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ
¸ÀºÁ ¸ÀzÀjà «µÀAiÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ w½¸ÀzÉÃ, ºÁUÀÆ 2£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀzÀAvÉ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÆqÀ£É gÁfAiÀiÁV 19
®PÀëPÉÌ gÁfÃAiÀiÁVzÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤¦-25 gÀAvÉ 1£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ EµÀÄÖ ºÀt
1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¨ÁåAPï
UÁågÀAnAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ E¶ÖzÉ JAzÀÄ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
19. In the background of these material on record, it has to
be inferred that a finding recorded in a criminal case cannot be a
basis to conclude the proceedings in a civil case. However, in the
instant case, the entire case revolves around the supply of
material by the plaintiff-company to defendant No.1 and the said
supply was made pursuant to the issuance of two bank guarantees
and these two bank guarantees were the subject matter of the
suit. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff-company ought to
have taken defendant No.2 into confidence before entering into
compromise with defendant No.1. In view of the provisions
contained under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it
may be inferred that in view of the variance of terms of
agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, pursuant to
closure of criminal cases based on the compromise entered into
between the plaintiff-company and the defendant No.1, there is
variance in the tripartite contractual obligation between the
plaintiff company; defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2, insofar
as the disputed bank guarantees referred to above. In view of
such variance in the agreement in the plaintiff-company and the
defendant No.1 pursuant to the compromise behind the back of
the defendant No.2-Bank, would reflect the conduct of the parties,
particularly, the defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that though
the defendant No.1 has filed written statement in the suit,
however, he has not contested the case by cross-examining the
witnesses of the plaintiff side and on the side of the defendant
No.2-Bank. Plaintiff-company is an instrumentality of the State
and the defendant No.2-Bank is a statutory body under the aegis
of Reserve Bank of India. Both, the plaintiff and defendant No.2,
are liable to function in terms of the statutory provisions and the
defendant No.1, being a private person who had received the
materials from the plaintiff-company, is liable to make good the
claim made in the invoices to the plaintiff-company. It is not in
dispute that the original bank guarantees were missing and the
entire case was decided by the trial Court based on the certified
copies of the two bank guarantees. It is not in dispute that the
original bank guarantees were not produced before the trial Court
and in the absence of such predominant document to decide the
dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, the defendant No.2-
Bank has filed certain documents under Order XLI Rule 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to aid this Court to decide the matter on
merits. We have carefully examined the documents referred to in
the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and these documents being necessary for adjudicating
the appeal on merits since the entire dispute revolves around two
bank guarantees, the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the documents are
taken on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the defendants
No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable, requires modification
and the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit fastening
liability on the defendant No.1 alone to satisfy the claim of the
plaintiff-company discharging defendant No.2-Bank. Resultantly,
the finding recorded by the trial Court is modified and plaintiff-
company is entitled for relief sought for in the suit against the
defendant No.1 alone. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed, absolving the appellant herein
(defendant No.2-Bank) to satisfy the decree;
2. Judgment and decree dated 17th November, 2011
passed in OS. No.15 of 1993 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravati is modified and the
plaintiff company is liable to recover the decretal
amount from the defendant No.1.
3. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
