The High Court dismissed appeals by bank officers and dismissed appeals by the bank in a batch of suits involving fraud and parallel banking. The court held that bank documents produced in fraud cases are admissible even without Banker's Book Evidence Act compliance. Cross appeals by employees were dismissed for insufficient court fee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 55 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 8 of 2011
2
Near Bus Stand, Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 9 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
3
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 10 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
4
---- Respondent
FA No. 11 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
5
---- Respondent
FA No. 12 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 13 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
6
---- Respondent
FA No. 14 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
7
Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 15 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
8
---- Respondent
FA No. 16 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 20 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
9
2(a). Smt. Asha Bai, W/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(b) Rajkumar, S/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(c) Ved Kumar, S/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(d) Yashwant, S/o Sujan singh Pisde, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(e) Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(f) Maina Bai, D/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged Aobut 38 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2(g) Nirmala Bai, D/o Sujan Singh Pisde, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kaudikasa, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
10
FA No. 22 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 29 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
11
---- Respondent
FA No. 35 of 2011
---- Petitioner
Versus
12
---- Respondent
FA No. 36 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
13
---- Respondent
FA No. 37 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 38 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
14
---- Respondent
FA No. 39 of 2011
---- Appellant
15
FA No. 40 of 2011
Versus
16
---- Respondent
FA No. 41 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 42 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
17
---- Respondent
FA No. 43 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
18
---- Respondent
FA No. 44 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
19
---- Respondent
FA No. 45 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 46 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
20
---- Respondent
FA No. 47 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
21
---- Respondent
FA No. 48 of 2011
---- Petitioner
Versus
22
---- Respondent
FA No. 56 of 2011
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 57 of 2011
---- Appellant
23
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 58 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
24
---- Respondent
FA No. 59 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
25
Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 60 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 61 of 2011
26
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 110 of 2013
---- Appellant
Versus
27
---- Respondent
FA No. 117 of 2013
---- Appellant
Versus
28
Chowki, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 118 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
29
Bank, R/o Near Bus Stand, Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
FA No. 119 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
30
Chowki, PS Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 120 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 121 of 2011
31
Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 122 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
32
Mumbai, Having Its Branch At – Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station, Tahil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Ambagarh Chowki,
---- Respondent
FA No. 123 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
33
---- Respondent
FA No. 124 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
34
Versus
35
FA No. 126 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
36
FA No. 127 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
37
---- Respondent
FA No. 128 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
38
FA No. 129 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 130 of 2010
39
Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil and Post Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 130 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
40
Act 1970, Head Office- Naku Tower, Cough Parade Kolabo, Mumbai. Having its Branch at- Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Through Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Ambagarh Chowki
---- Respondent
FA No. 131 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
41
---- Respondent
FA No. 132 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
42
---- Respondent
FA No. 133 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
43
FA No. 134 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
44
FA No. 135 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 135 of 2011
45
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 137 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
46
---- Respondent
FA No. 138 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
47
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 138 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
48
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
FA No. 139 of 2011
---- Petitioner
Versus
49
Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
FA No. 140 of 2010
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 140 of 2011
50
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
FA No. 141 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
51
Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Ambagarh Chowki
FA No. 150 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
52
---- Respondent
FA No. 151 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
53
---- Respondent
FA No. 162 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
54
FA No. 223 of 2011
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
55
Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon'ble Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor , JJ
Judgment On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
06/12/2018 :
56
similar in all the cases, they are being disposed of by this common order.
57
much later to the date when corresponding documents in the Bank would not show any transaction and the account holder was still paid the amount by allowing withdrawal through withdrawal slip. The defendants were thus found involved in carrying on parallel banking business by using the funds of the Bank without there being any amount to the same value available in the saving bank account of the account holder. This fraud was to the tune of Rs.3 crores.
58
Meshram has pleaded that even if any fraud or irregularity in the Banks transaction has occurred, the same was committed by defendant No.2 as he was not involved in maintaining or making entries in the ledger. According to him, as soon as pay in slips were issued by the defendant NO.2 or other officers/employees of the bank, the said officer/employee was bound to honour the pay in slip and he has performed his duties in good faith without being involved in the affairs between defendant No.2 and the account holder.
59
deserves to be set aside. They would place reliance on judgments in the matters of Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd {AIR 1967 SC 1058} and H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam {AIR 2011 SC 1492}.
60
holders even though such amount was not deposited in his bank account for proper withdrawal. But in course of enquiry by the Bank, it was found that the subject amounts have been withdrawn. Ex.-P/6 & P/7 are the ledger account corresponding to account No.7733 showing transaction by the account holder.
17.These documents have been produced by the Bank who should be in possession of such documents in relation to his account holder in due course of banking business. The documents are computer generated prints and has been owned and proved by the Bank's witnesses SR Panchbhave (PW-1) and Mahesh Jha (PW-3). Even if these officers have admitted that Ex.-P/6 & P/7 do not carry any signatures of any officer of the Bank but the fact remains that the same have been produced by the plaintiff itself. Even otherwise, the present is not a case where the account holder was borrower and the bank was making recovery of the excess amount than what was advanced by financial assistance to a borrower. It is a case of fraud for which there need not be any regular entry in the bank accounts or ledgers. If defendant Nos.2 to 4 would have made entries in the bank's ledger, they would not have succeeded in committing fraud to the extent of Rs.3 crores because as soon as a fraudulent entry is made in the ledger account, it would be disclosed at the time of audit. Therefore, in cases of fraud, these traces are not left in the original record of the bank. Hence in such cases, the Bank cannot be expected to produce the original record as if it is a case of loan transaction.
61
Appeals by Dena Bank
62
the Bank has not produced ledger folio or scroll. Merely on the basis of scrutiny report which is not evidence of the transaction between the bank officer and the account holder, it could not have been concluded that the excess amount was withdrawn by the respective account holder in these cases. The trial Court has also noted that the Bank Officer Mahesh Jha has not appeared in the witness box after filing his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC nor any member of the scrutiny team has been examined.
FA Nos.43/2011, 41/2011, 140/2010 (Cross appeals preferred by the Account Holders)
63
that under the decree he is only required to pay his share of the decretal amount whereas the decree is joint and several. Therefore, the said defendant in the suit against whom decree has been passed is required to pay the Court fee on the entire decretal amount. The cross Appeals thus suffer from non payment of adequate Court fee and are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as it is not properly constituted.
Sd/Sd/Judge Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Barve
3 issues framed by the court
Whether xerox copies of documents are admissible in evidence without complying with the Banker's Book Evidence Act.
Whether the Bank proved the fraud and excess withdrawal by account holders on the principle of preponderance of probability.
Whether cross appeals by defendants were maintainable given the joint and several nature of the decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank LtdReferred¶13
Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd {AIR 1967 SC 1058} · Who else cites this
H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs Vs. A. RamalingamReferred¶13
H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam {AIR 2011 SC 1492} · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dena Bank
Jayant Triyumbuk Daate
Madan Mohan Dwivedi
Sharad Goverdhan
B.L. Maheshwari
S.D. Meshram
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
