Decided on July 09,2014



A. Arumughaswamy, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THE appellant is a Bank. The appellant Bank has filed the Original Application for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,35,17,319.17. The said amount has been sanctioned on discounting exchange bills. The Bunk has sanctioned the amount on the basis of the hypothecation as well as consortium of some security on the basis of the discount bills of exchange. The Bank had filed the O.A. before the D.R.T. Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the Appeal has been filed. The Counsel for the appellant contended, after filing Vakalatnama today, that the case can be remanded back to D.R.T. and prayed for suitable orders.
(2.) THE Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that this Court cannot remand the matter as a routine one. The case can be remitted back provided sufficient ground is shown by the appellant and the matter cannot be remanded back automatically. Hence the prayer of the appellant for remand be rejected. It is seen carefully that the Bank has dues of 12 crores and odd amount but no sufficient steps are taken to recover the amount. It is seen that even the time was granted to produce the bills pertaining to the dues as per page No. 106 of the Appeal. But they have not produced. No statement of account was produced. Further it is also seen that no signature, no seal affixed by the Bank on copies of the account. Even though the Bank advanced loan in February 2000, they have filed O.A. in 2001. Even at that time of filing the O.A. appellant Bank has not produced the documents till now. Thereafter also the documents are not produced. The appellant would lay the claims only on the returned bills. The present case is filed for namesake only to blame the Court that the case has been dismissed. But this Court feels that without production of returned bills of exchange and filing of the O.A., filed for statistical purpose by again spending the Court -fee. Hence this Court is of the view that the person who was in charge of sanction loan and preservation of loan documents of exchange bills at time of issuing the notice thereafter, and person who has put signature on the O.A., the person who is controlling the Recovery Department, then the Manager and A.G.M. concerns, the person who has filed this appeal before Court and prolonged the matter from 2006 to 2014, they should be charged and held responsible for the departmental lapses by holding departmental inquiry and the concerned culprit be dealt with necessary by filing complaint with Crime Branch, initially against Manager concerned and interest be recovered from the defaulting person. Therefore this Court intends not to review the order but the tendencies of serious lapses need to be reduced giving direction to the above said persons to find out culprit by holding departmental inquiry in giving Police complaint to search the missing bills. ORDER The appeal is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.