Datsine (India) Limited vs Indian Bank, Ernakulam Branch
2024 Latest Caselaw 5396 Ker

Kerala High Court

Datsine (India) Limited vs Indian Bank, Ernakulam Branch on 16 February, 2024

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                        RFA NO. 394 OF 2003
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.3.2003 IN OS 569/2000 ON
          THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

          DATSINE (INDIA) LIMITED, TRICHUR
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
          V.K.RAMASWAMY
          BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY


RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

          INDIAN BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH
          CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM.
          BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN
          SRI.E.SUBRAMANI



     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
9.2.2024 AND THE COURT ON 16.02.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                            2
R.F.A.No. 394 of 2003

                                  C.S.SUDHA, J.
                          ------------------------------------
                              R.F.A.No. 394 of 2003
                  ----------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024


                                JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment

and decree dated 24/03/2003 in O.S.No.569/2000 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. The respondent herein is the

defendant in the suit. The parties and the documents will be referred to as

described in the suit.

2. The plaintiff, a Private Limited Company (the plaintiff

Company) has a current account with the defendant bank from the year

1986. The plaintiff Company in the normal course of business issued a

crossed cheque dated 09/04/1996 for an amount of ₹8,100/- in favour of

Vijaya Bank A/c Darshak - Rights, issued out of the current account

maintained with the defendant bank. There was sufficient funds in the

account to honour the cheque. Inspite of the same, the defendant bank

wrongfully dishonoured the cheque citing the reason - 'not arranged for'.

When the defendant bank was asked the reason for the dishonour of the

cheque, the plaintiff Company was informed that the cheque had been

dishonoured due to oversight and that they regretted the wrongful dishonour

of the cheque. Due to the wrongful dishonour of the cheque, the plaintiff

Company suffered a monetary loss of ₹1,50,000/- as they were unable to get

the allotment of the Rights Shares of Darshak Ltd. Consequentially they

were unable to fulfill the terms of a negotiated prior deal for sale of the

shares on allotment. The wrongful and negligent dishonour of the cheque

has also resulted in loss of reputation and prestige for the plaintiff Company

among bankers, Companies, merchant bankers, traders and its customers.

The defendant bank was duly intimated about the monetary loss and also the

resultant loss of reputation, prestige and other consequences. Though the

defendant bank was asked several times to make good the loss sustained by

the plaintiff Company, they have failed to do so. Hence the suit claiming

damages to the tune of ₹5 lakhs with costs from the defendant and their

assets.

3. The defendant bank filed written statement admitting that the

cheque had been wrongfully dishonoured due to an oversight. However,

there was no negligence on the part of the defendant bank. The allegations

that the plaintiff Company had sustained monetary loss and that there was

loss of reputation and prestige, are incorrect and false. The defendant bank

had expressed its regret and informed the plaintiff that the dishonour took

place due to an oversight. The matter was amicably settled between the

parties also. The defendant had given a reply to the lawyer notice sent by

the plaintiff also. The very fact that the plaintiff kept the issue pending for

more than two years and thereafter issued a registered notice dated

15/05/1998 itself would show that the issue had been discussed, sorted out

and settled amicably between the parties. The claim made in the plaint is

exorbitant. As the plaintiff Company had not sustained any loss, they are not

entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

4. On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 and

PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the

plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant.

The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and

after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff Company has come up in appeal.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether

there is any infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an

interference by this Court.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The fact that there was a wrongful dishonour of Ext.A1 cheque

of the plaintiff Company is admitted, which according to the defendant,

happened to be dishonoured due to an oversight and was not deliberate or

due to any negligence on their part. Paragraph 6 of the plaint referring to the

monetary loss to the plaintiff Company reads thus - "Arising out of the

wrongful dishonour of the cheque the plaintiff company suffered a monetary

loss of ₹1,50,000/- being unable to get allotted the Rights Shares of Darshak

Limited and the subsequent inability to fulfil the terms of a negotiated prior

deal for sale of the shares on allotment. Every effort made by the plaintiff

company to salvage the loss by explaining the wrongful dishonour of the

cheque by the defendant bank did not succeed in getting the shares allotted

which otherwise would have been sure being a preferential right issue."

There are no materials to show how this figure of ₹1,50,000/- had been

arrived at. In the evidence, the case of the plaintiff Company was that each

share would have fetched a value of ₹165/- to ₹175/-. As rightly pointed

out by the trial court, there is no evidence to substantiate the said claim

made by the plaintiff Company. PW2 was examined to establish that he had

agreed to purchase 1,000 shares from the plaintiff Company. There is no

reference in the plaint relating to the contract or agreement with PW2. It is

true that there is a reference in the plaint to the effect that due to the

wrongful dishonour, the plaintiff Company had been unable to fulfil the

terms of a negotiated prior deed for sale of the shares on allotment.

However the details of the contract or the agreement alleged to have been

entered into with PW2 does not find a place in the pleadings.

8. Further, the plaintiff Company has also made a claim for

₹3,50,000/- for loss of reputation, prestige etc. The pleading regarding this

claim contained in paragraph 7 of the plaint reads - "Further the wrongful

and negligent dishonour of the aforesaid cheque by the defendant bank has

resulted in loss of reputation and prestige for the plaintiff company among

the Bankers, Companies, Merchant Bankers, Traders and customers of the

plaintiff company." However none of the bankers, Companies, merchant

bankers, traders or customers of the plaintiff Company were examined to

prove the loss of reputation and prestige. In these circumstances, the trial

court was right in holding that no satisfactory evidence had been let in to

substantiate the pleadings in the plaint. I find no infirmity in the findings of

the trial court calling for an interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/