Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mr. S.K Dhuper

DRT25 Jul 2025TA/1150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application to recover Rs 77 lakhs wrongfully credited to the respondent's current account due to fraudulent entries by a branch manager and the respondent. The court rejected pleas of limitation and forged documents.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent to pay principal sum of Rs.77,09,449.57 along with costs and interest @18% per annum within 30 days; recovery via sale of assets on failure; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Mr. S.K Dhuper — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI,^{Presiding C)fficer} Debts RecoverY Tribuna!-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TA NO.1150 0F 2023 UCO BANK VS. MR.^{S.K. DHUPER}

¶3

Reserved on t 27.06.2025

¶4

Pronounced on z 25.07.2025

UCO Bank

-Applicant bank

VS.

Mr. S.K. DhuPer

Defendant

¶10

Present:

¶11

Sh. I.S.Chauhan,^{Counsel appears for} applicant bank along^{with Shri Manish} Yadav, Legal Officer of^{applicant bank.} None for defendant.

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application^{has been filed by the} applicant bank,^{on 02.02.t999through Shri Narinder} Singh Sahni,^{Branchtvlanager of the appiicant bank,} under Section^{19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the} defendant for^{recoveryof a sum of Rs'77,09,449'57} together with cost,^{chargesand pendentellite and} future interest @^{17'B5olop.a. from date of filing of this} O.A. tillthe^{realization in full.}

¶14

The brief^{facts of the case are that the defendant} no.l has been^{maintaining a current accountin his} name, urith the applicant^{bank's Naraina Branch, New} Delhi. The defendant^{no.2 was the Branch Manager} with the Naraina^{Branch of the appllcant bank for the} period of January, 1989 to April,^{1992.The applicant} bank, while tallying^{the statement of account of the} defendant no.1,^{came to know that a numberof wrong} and fraudulent credit entries^{have been made in the}

TN1ts0l2023

account of the defendant no.1.^{The wrongand} fraudulent credit entries were^{made in the account of} the defendant no.1 by way of^{collusion betweenthe} defendant no.2 and the defendant^{no.1. The defendant} no.1 was fully aware that^{the credlt entries made in his} account were fraudulent^{and had been made only with} the^purpose of defrauding and^{cheating the applicant} bank. The defendant^{no.2 beingthe branch manager of} the concerned branch and^{being overall in chargeofthe} affairs of the said branch,^{knowinglyand with malafide} intention connived with the^{defendantno.1 and made} the wrong and fraudulent credit^{entriesto get undue} benefit and cause loss^{to the bank.The defendantno.1} as well as defendant no.2^{have gained undue benefit} from the wrong and fraudulent credit^{entries made in} the account of the defendant^{no.1. The details of the} wrong and fraudulent entries i.e., Rs.49,040/-^was wrongly and fraudulently credited on^{15.12.1989. The} said amount was wrongly and^{fraudulently creditedby} the defendant no.2 in connivance with the^defendant no.1 by manipulating the account^{of the applicant bank,} Rs.1,01,120/- was also credited on^15.12.1989, Rs.t,02,7tU- was wrongly credited on^16.12.1989, Rs.1,56,4771-, was wrongly credited on^17.03.1990, Rs.65,152/- was wrongly credited on 30.03.1990, Rs.19,000/- was wrongly credited. The sum^was fraudulently transferred from current account^no.732, for which there is no authorization from the account holder of the current account no.732. Rs.5,035/-^was wrongly credited. The said amount was fraudulently transferred from current account no.732, foi' which there is no authorization from the account holder of the current account no. 732. Rs.4,00,000/- was wrongly credited by means of three entries of Rs.L,27,3001-,

TNtt50l2023

Ps,.72,7OOl- and^{Rs.2,00,000/-.The modus} operandi adopted for this^{fraudulententry by the} defendant no. 1 and 2 was^{that the defendantno.2} made an excess debit of^{Rs.8,00,000 in the accountof} the seruice branch of the applicant^{Bank,for whichthe} defendant no.2 did not^{submit any chequesfor} collection. Out of the aforementioned^{amount debited} to service branch, a sum of^{Rs.4,00,000/- was wrongly} and fraudulently credited in the^{account of the} defendant no. 1. A sum of^{Rs.2,62,500/- was wrongly} and fraudulently credited.^{The modus operandi adopted} for this wrong and fraudulent entry^{by the defendants} was that out of the aforementioned^{Rs.8,00,000/-} wrongly and fraudulently debited^{to the service branch,} an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-^{was wrongly credited to the} accounts nos.747,749,755^{and 757 and the said sum} was thereafter wrongly debited from^{the said accounts} and credited to the account of the^{defendantno.l' An} aggregating amount of^{Rs.12,500/- was debited from} these account nos. 747, 749, 755^{and 757, as interest} and instead of crediting the amount^{to the Bank's profit} and loss account, the amount^{was diverted along with} Rs.2,50,000.00 to the current account^{of the defendant} no.1. A sum of Rs.58,727.57^{was wrongly and} fraudulently credited on 25.07.1991.^{The modus of the} operandi adopted for the said wrong and^fraudulent entry by the defendants was by debiting a sum^of Rs.52,7261- from the Sundry Creditors account and a sum of Rs.6,001.57 from the margin account.^{The said} sums were wrongly and fraudulently credited in the account of the defendant no. 1.

¶23

It is further submitted that the applicant bank after becoming aware of the above said wrongful and

e.)

TN115012023

credit entries called upon the^{defendantson various} occasion to deposit the entire^{outstandingamount so} as to liquidate all the^{duesof the bank' However,the} defendants failed to repay^{the dues of the applicant} bank. Therefore, the applicant^{bankserved a legal} notice dated 27.01.t999 to the defendant^{nos'l & 2,} demanding the amount^{due as on that date, but failed} to recover the same.^{Thus, the present O'A. is preferred} by the applicant bank to^{recover its dues.}

¶28

On notice by this^{Tribunal, the defendants put} appearance through^{counsel.Thereafter,the nameof} defendant no.2^{was deleted from the array of parties} vide order dated 30.10.2001^{as the proceedings against} defendant no.2 are not^{maintainable before this} Tribunal. The defendant^{no. 1 filed writtenstatement.}

¶29

In the written statement^{the defendantno'1has} denied the facts mentioned^{in the OA. It is submitted} that No debt, Loan etc.^was taken^{by the defendant.} The applicant's/bank manager Shri.^{S.K' Oberoi himself} is personally involved in the^{entire scandal'The} defendant no.1 has^nothing to^{do with the said case.} Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed'^The application/suit was filed by^{the bank againstthe} defendant is without any cause of^{action, as the} defendant have nothing to do^{said case. It is further} submitted that the withdrawal of the^amountswas made by the applicant bank through^{its own Manager} Shri. S.K. Oberoi with his forged^{signatures. Hence the} petition/suit is liable to be rejected Ulo 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The defendant never opened^{hls current account} in the bank. The defendant had his saving bank account. In the saving bank. account, no^{loan can be}

q.J'

TNll50l2023

granted. It is submitted that no^{loan was} taken^by the defendant and all the^{entities debit and credits are} fictitious entries. The Hon'ble court^{may be pleased to} issue the directions to the applicant^{bank to produce all} the Vouchers/Cheques/Account^Opening Form/Signatures Specimen^{Card and the Book of the} cheque issue. The Hon'ble^{court may be pleased to pass} the appropriate orders^{againstthe applicant bank and} in favour of the defendant.^{It is sr-rbmittedthat the bank} manager has committed the^{fraud by witndrawing the} huge amount from the Saving^{Bank Account of the} defendant. Hence the^{present case against the} defendant is null and void^and the^{same is liable to be} dismissed. The suit/application^{againstthe answering} defendant is malafied and^{the same have been filed} with some ulterior motive and^{hence the suit is liable to} be dismissed. The suit/application^{is barred by limitation} of 3 Years. As^per the suit/application^{the applicant} bank is claiming the amount against^{the defendant} relating to the^period 1989 &^{1990.Hencethe present} suit is liable to be dismissed. It^{is further submitted that} no wrong credit was ever^{given by the bank as per the} provision. The claim/petition is barred by limitation of three^years. It is a well settled^{law that the claim can} be filed within the^period of three^{years. It is submitted} that if the bank himself committed^{the fraud, the} defendant is no liable for any^{fault or offence committed} by the bank. It is !'urther submitted that^{as per the} Banking Act, each account with the bank^{of any nature,} shall be audlted two times in a^{year. As} the^{claim is} related to the^period of 1989-1990. Hence the^entire petition/claim is barred by ilmitation and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the defendant had oniy a saving bank account and the s)

¶34

TNtl50l2023

¶35

¶36

same was closed in 1990.^{No error was remainedin} the said account at^{any time. No statementof account} was issued only the^{PassBook was issued and the same} was surrendered in^{1990 at the time of closing the} account. It was the^{prime duty of the bank to access} their own account^{as per the provision of law. The} alleged entry as^{stated for Rs.20,000/- is false and} frivolous. The entire^{claim of the applicant bank is a} false claim and the^{same isliable tobe} dismissed/rejected.^{No proof or any documentshas} been filed by^{the applicantbank to show that such error} was detected^{on 24.11.95while there was no such error} without^{prejudice and without admitting if any error was} detected^{the defendantis not liable to pay any interest} or^penalty as^{the same was the fault of the bank' It is} further submitted^{that the defendant never withdraws} the aforesaid^{amount from the account'no such} amount can^{be withdrawn from the SavingBank} Account. The^{alleged notice dated 16'11'98is a false} notice and the^{same was issuedby the bank illegally} offensively^{and malafidely. The claim of Rs'14,57,8541-} as filed by^{the applicantbankis a false and manipulated} claim. The^{Hon'ble couftmay be pleased to ascertain} whether the claim^{as filed by the applicant bank is false} or not.^{The applicant bank ls not entitledfor any claim} as mentioned^{in the petition. The defendantis not liable} to pay any amount^{to the applicantbank' Hence, no} account was^{operatedafter 1990 as the Saving Bank} Account was closed^{on March, 1990 without prejudice} the defendant^{is not liable to pay anv amount of interest} as well as the^{penalty. No fault has been committedby} the defendant. It^{is submittedthat the applicantbank} is not entitled for any^{claim.As the claim of the} applicant bank^{is false and frivolous and no amount is} eJ'

¶37

¶38

TNtt50l2023

¶39

due towards^{the defendant. The entire} claim of the applicant^{bank is liable to be rejected. It is} further submitted that^{the entire suit is not maintainable} in view of the various^{preliminary objectibnsand} submissions as^{raise by the answeringdefendant'} Hence the applicant^{bank is not entitled for any relief as} claimed. The^{petitionis liable to be dismissed with} costs. The applicant^{bank is wrongly statedthat no} matter is^{pending with any other Branch of the Tribunal'} The matter vide^{case No. OA 53/99 is pendingin the} Hon'ble couft. It^{is furthersubmitted that all the} documents as^{filed by the applicant bank are false' The} Hon'ble court^{may be pleasedto issue the directionsto} the applicant^{bank to furnishall the required documents} as mentioned^{in the preilminaryobjections as raised by} the defendant.^{Accordingly,it is prayed that the} application/petition^{filed by the bank maybe dismissed} with costs.

¶40

The applicant^{bank as well as defendantno'l} have filed their^{respective evidence.}

¶41

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{of the applicant bankand} perused the record.

¶42

The main^{contention of the defendant no'1 in the} wrir.€n arguments^{filed on 15.12.2008is that the} Hon'ble DRT^{has no jurisdictidn to try and entertain the} case of the applicant.^{No debt or loan was taken by} defendant no.1^{and the defendant no.2 is personally} involved in the^{entire scandal. No entrieswere made in} the account of^{defendantno.1 and no such withdrawal} or deposit were^{made by defendantno.1 as stated in} the statement filed^{by the applicant. It is further} g\

¶43

TNtl50l2023

¶44

¶45

submitted that^{the defendant had onlysaving} bank account and^{no loan can be grantedin saving bank} account, therefore, the^{defendant no,1 cannot be held} liable. On the other^{hand the Ld. counsel of the} applicant bank has^{submittedthat the defendantno.1} has current account with^{the applicant bank and the} defendant no.2^{in connivance with defendantno'1 has} made credit entries in the^{accounts which were} appropriated by the^{defendant no'1 and therefore,the} defendant no.1^{is liable to pay the amount which has} been wrongly^{credited in account of the defendant no'1} in connivance^{with defendan[ no.2. From perusal of the} record it is clear that^{the defendant no.1 has a current} account in the^{applicant bank. The credit entrieshas} been made by the^{defendantno.2 in connivance with} the defendant^{no.1 and therefore, the benefitwas given} to the defendant^{no.1 and the amount was creditedin} the account of^{defendant no'1. Therefore, the} defendant no.1^{is liable to pay the amountthat has} been wrongly^{credited in the account of defendant no'1} by the defendant^{no.2.Merely because credit entries} were made by^{defendantno.2, it cannot be said that} defendant no.1^{cannot be held liable. The amounthas} been credited^{in the account of defendant no.1 and the} defendant no.1^{has utilizedthat amountillegallyand} therefore, he is bound^{to repay the same to the} applicant bank.^{Therefore, the contention of the} defendant^{has no force. The applicant bank has proved} the statement of^{account arrd tire wrong entriesby filing} the statement of account^{and has proved the same as} per Banker's Book Evidence Act.

¶46

The next contention^{of the defendant no.1 is that} the OA is barred by limitaticn^{as the entriesrelatesto} gA

¶47

¶48

TNt15012023

¶49

the period of 1989 to 1990 and^{rhe petition has been} filed in the^year 1999 and after^{expiry of 9 years,} therefore, the OA is barred^{by limitation. It is submitted} that audit of account^{is mandatoryafter every three} months and hence the^{OA is time barred. On the other} hand the Ld. counsel of the^{applicantbank has} submitted that wrong and^{fraudulententries were} detected by the applicant^{bank on 04.02.1996and} hence the applicatlon^{of the applicant bank is within the} period of limitation. From^{perusal of the record it is clear} that wrong credit^{entrles have been made in the} account of the^{defendant no.1 by the defendant no'2 in} connivance with defendant^{no,l and therefore, the} same could not be^{detected by the applicant bank' The} fact of the fraudulent^{credit entries was detectedby the} applicant bank on^{04.02.1996 and therefore,the} application^{has been flled within a limitationperiod of} three^{years.The OA has been filed on 01.02.1999 and} therefore, the OA^{is within limitation and cannotbe} dismissed on^{this ground.}

¶50

The next^{contention of the defendant no.1is that} he has only a^{saving bank account and that was closed} on 31.03.1990, hence^{no question arises of wrong} entries. But the contention^{of the defendanthas no} force. The defendant^{has a current account and the} same has been^{exhibrted oy the applicantbank as per} Banker's Book Evidence^{Act and therefore,the} contention of^{the defendant no'1 has no force.}

¶51

The next contention^{of the defendant no.1 is that} no legal notice was^{sent or receivedby the defendant} no.1 whereas the applican\ban!^{has filed the copy of}

TNrrs0l2023

the legal notice which has been exhibited by^the applicant bank. Therefore, it is clear^{that the legal} notice was sent to the defendant^{and the contention of} the defendant has no force.

¶56

The next contention of the defendant^{no.1is that} the applicant bank has filed two^{matters vide OA no'} 405/1998 between the^{same partiesand present OA} no.53/1999. The OA no. 405/1998^{was already} dismissed by the Hon'ble Court^{and therefore,the} second OA cannot be maintainable. In this^{regard this} Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2025^{has soughtan} explanation from the applicant bank^{to explain the} situation as to why the OA may^{not be declared barred} by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. In thls^{regardthe Ld. counsel} of the applicant bank has filed the^{explanationdated} 25.06.2025 and submitted that the OA^no.405/1998 was filed and the same was not related to the^present OA filed by the applicant bank. The^present OA^has been filed relating to other simultaneous^{fraud which} came into the knowledge of the bank^thereafter, therefore, present original application has been^filed against Mr. S.K.Dhuper. Therefore,^{the OA is not barred} by the Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. From^perusal of the^record it is clear that the defendant no.1 has not filed the details of the OA no.405/1998. Therefore, it^{cannot be} said that both the OAs are for the same cause of action and for the same relief. If the cause of action are different, the second OA is maintainable. It^is the duty of the defendant no.1 to file the record and^prove that both the OAs are for the same cause of action and for the same relief. But the defendant no.1 has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. On the other hand il-

¶57

¶58

TNtt50l2023

¶59

the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank^has specifically stated that these two OAs^{relate to different} cause of actions and therefore, they^{are maintainable'} From perusal of the record it^{is clear that a Suit} no.256/1999 has been filed by the^{UCO Bank in the} Hon'ble High Court of^{Delhi against Mrs. Prabha Dhuper} and Mr. S.K. Oberoi which^{has beendecided on} 2l.O2.20ll.It is also clear a Suit^{no. 225lOBl99 has} been filed by UCO Bank against^{Mrs. Prabha Dhuper} and Mr. S.K.Oberoi and the^{same has been decided on} Zl.O2.2Oll. From^perusal of^{these ordersit is clear that} these OAs were against^{Mrs. PrabhaDhuper andSh.} S.K.Oberoi, while the^{presentOA has been filed by the} UCO Bank against Shri^{S.K.Dhuperand Sh. S.K.Oberoi,} therefore, these OAs has^{relateto differentpafties.In} both the Suits no.225l08/99^{and Suit no. 256/1999,the} defendant is Mrs. Prabha^{Dhuperand the defendant} no.1 Shri S.K.Dhuper is not the^{defendant, therefore,} the OA cannot be dismissed under^{Order2 Rule CPC'}

¶60

The next contention of^{the defendant no.1 is that} no current account was opened^{by the defendantno.1} and by specimen card is a^{temper document,the receipt} memo as filed is not related to defendant^{no.1 and} therefore, these are forged documents.^{But the} contention of the defendant^{no.1 has no force. The} applicant bank has^proved the^{documentsin accordance} with Section 4 of Banker's^{Book Evidence Act and as per} Section 2 of the Banker's^{Book Evidence Act, the copies} of the statement of account^{and other documentsshall} be^prima facie deemed to be^{genuine. Therefore, there} is no ground to believe that thc^{Cocumentsfiled by the} applicant bank along with the documents^{relatingto the} opening of the current account^{are forged documents.}

c).

TNtt50/2023

Therefore, the contention of defendant^{no.1 has no} force.

¶65

The next contention of the^{defendantis that the} knowledge of the wrong entries^{has alreadybeen come} into the knowledge of the bank^{very much prior to the} date on which it is claimed^{to have been received,} therefore, the OA is time barred.^{But the contentionof} the defendant has no force.^{The applicant bankhas} specifically^pleaded that the bank^{has came to know} about the wrong credit entries^{on 04.02.1996and} therefore, on summaries^{and conjunctions it cannot be} presumed that the bank has knowledge of the wrong entries much before 04.02.1996.^{Therefore, the} contention of the defendant^{has no force.}

¶66

From^perusal of the entire evidence,^{it is clear that} the defendant has failed to^{prove their case as claimed} in the written statement. On the^{other hand, the} applicant bank has^proved his^{case againstthe} defendant and therefore, the defendant^{is liable to pay} the amount claimed by the applicant bank^{and the} OAffA of the applicant bank^{is liable to be allowed.}

¶67

ORDER

¶68

I hereby allow this T.A. of the^{Applicant Bank and} direct the defendant to^pay to^{the applicant bank within} 30 days from today, a total^{principal sum of} Rs.77,09,449.57 along with cost, expenses and^interest @^{LZo/o from the date of filing of this OA whichhas} become T.A. till the date of realization.

TNtt50l2023

In case of failure to deposit the^{above amount} within the stipulated^period, the^{same shall be} recovered from sale of^{personal movableand} immovable assets of the defendant.

¶73

Recovery Certificate be^{issuedforthwith and be} sent to Recovery Officer,^{DebtsRecoveryTribunal-Il,} Delhi.

¶74

The registry of this^{Tribunal is herebydirected to} issue free copy of the order^{and send the sameto both} the^parties.

¶75

Parties are direct to appear^{before the Ld'} Recovery Officer, DRT-II,^{Delhi on 25.09.2025.Pending} IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶76

File be consigned to records.

¶77

! sj.. Date : 25.07.2025 (susHrL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶78

This^judgement has been signed, dated^and pronounced in open court.

¶79

c .^s{ .- Date : 25.07.2025 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶80

Uco Bank v. Mr. S.K Dhuper

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mr. S.K Dhuper

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases