Decided on December 13,2005



P.K.Deb, - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-Bank against the dismissal order recorded by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad of the claim of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 16, 63, 769.35 vide judgment and order dated 21st February, 2002 in T.A. No. 133/ 2000.
(2.) Originally a suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad by the appellant Bank for recovery of the above mentioned sum against the defendant-respondents and on setting up of the Tribunal under the RDDBFI Act, 1993, the matter came up before the D.R.T., Allahabad and therein the original suit was re-numbered as T.A. No. 133/2000. The claim belongs to the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank which was amalgamated with the appellant-Canara Bank in the year 1985 and merger was on 23rd August, 1985. The proprietary firm of defendant No. 1 having defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as partners took the loan from the Laxmi Commercial Bank in the form of inland letter of credit limit of Rs. 3.00 lacs and hypothecated limit. Such limits of loan were enjoyed by the defendants between 1978-1982. At the time of taking loan and during the period as mentioned above defendant No. 8, who is respondent No. 8 in this appeal Shri Ramji Shukla was the Branch Manager of Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited. Some reconstruction was made in the constitution of the firm and defendant Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 became its partners. According to the appellant Bank during the course of conciliation of Laxmi Commercial Bank in the month of March, 1990 a fraud was detected in respect of L.C. Bills having 8 in numbers during the period 1980-81 amounting to Rs. 16,63,219.35 regarding the loan account of the defendants and such fraud was made as concealment by the defendants in collusion with the defendant No. 8 Ramji Shukla, as the dues were not paid by the defendants, then after service of notice claim was made in the year 1993 first before the Civil Court and by fiction of law it came to the Tribunal as already mentioned above. The details of those bills and the whole claim of the appellant's Bank were elaborately stated in paragraph Nos. 1 to 8 of the impugned judgment and for brevity's sake the same are not being reiterated in this appellate judgment. Defendant-respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 to 6 filed written statement denying the claim of the Bank and also pleaded that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation and that as fraud has been pleaded and no detailed particulars have been given in the plaint, such fraud as alleged cannot be taken into consideration. Their further case is that the dues of the Bank have been cleared by the defendants long back and the same could be revealed from the letter of the Bank (erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank) dated 11th June, 1983 which has been marked as Annexure No. 2.
(3.) DEFENDANT-respondent No. 8 has filed separate written statement pleading that no case of fraud could be made out against him and that he was terminated from the services of Laxmi Commercial Bank in the month of October, 1982 and such termination was made as usual on payment of one month's salary. No allegations were made against him for the purpose of termination, nor disciplinary proceeding was there. Against the written statement being filed, the appellant-Bank had filed replication, wherein they have denied of issuance of letter annexure No. 2 and they have reiterated their claim of fraud for the purpose of saving limitation.;

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