In this appeal against concurrent judgments of courts below, the High Court examined claims of fraud regarding a loan used for poplar trees and a nil account balance. The court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the estoppel argument and holding the trial courts' findings to be supported by evidence.
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::
R.S.A No. 1669 of 2007 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A No. 1669 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : July 06, 2009
Jagjit Singh and others,
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
UCO Bank and another,
...... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
**3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *****
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
As per the office report, respondent No.2 is not residing at the given address. Counsel for the appellants, however, states that respondent No.2 is a proforma respondent and need not be served at the stage of motion hearing.
This is an appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the respondent-Bank for recovery of certain amount.
The only argument raised by counsel for the appellants is that
::2::
R.S.A No. 1669 of 2007 (O&M)
the loan had been obtained for planting poplar trees and that the respondentbank had insured the said trees. However, those trees were damaged as a result of flood and the insurance amount was paid to the bank. After receiving the amount at one stage the statement of accounts in the bank showed the balance nil. Thus, as per the learned counsel for the appellants the bank was estopped from filing the suit for recovery.
It is trite to note that by insuring the trees the bank had not exonerated the appellants of their liability to mitigate any loss which may occur due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties. Thus, the fact that some money was actually paid to the bank by the insurer could only result in the reduction of the amount due to that extent. Undisputedly, both the Courts below have taken this aspect into consideration. As regards the argument that at one stage the statement of accounts showed the balance nil, both the Courts below have considered this aspect also.
The following questions of law have been proposed :-
“ i) Whether once the very transaction is result of fraud and concealment of material facts and based on material alteration then the same is liable to be rejected ?
ii) Whether once the statement of accounts shows the balance as nil still the same can be ignored and liability can be fastened upon the appellants ?
iii) Whether there is misreading, misconstruing and misrepresentation of pleadings and evidence ?”
As regards questions No.(i) and (iii), learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to convince me that the findings recorded are either on no evidence or a perverted reading of the evidence. As regards
R.S.A No. 1669 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::
question No.(ii), the same has already been dealt with above.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) July 06, 2009. JUDGE `kk'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a loan transaction based on fraud or material alteration can be ignored?
Whether a nil bank balance statement can be ignored to fasten liability?
Whether there is misreading of pleadings and evidence in the trial courts?
Jagjit Singh and others
UCO Bank
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
