1977 (9) TMI 124 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Forgery of cheque, requisition slip, and letter dated 7th Dec. 1967.
2. Wrongful dishonour of cheques dated 2nd Feb. 1968 and 5th Feb. 1968.
3. Estoppel from disputing payment made against cheque No. CSC/H.S. O47261.
4. Plaintiff's alleged loss and damages.
5. Defendant's alleged negligence in encashing the cheque for Rs. 13,701.
6. Relief entitlement for the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Forgery of Cheque, Requisition Slip, and Letter Dated 7th Dec. 1967:
The plaintiff claimed that the cheque No. CSC/H.S. O47261, the requisition slip, and the letter dated 7th Dec. 1967 were forged. The plaintiff denied issuing the cheque for Rs. 13,701 in favor of Soumen Kumar Chatterjee and alleged that the bank failed to exercise due care. The defendant bank argued that the plaintiff himself obtained a new cheque book after reporting the old one missing and that all transactions were conducted in the usual course of business without negligence. The court found no evidence of forgery and accepted the bank's evidence that the signatures on the documents were indeed the plaintiff's.

2. Wrongful Dishonour of Cheques Dated 2nd Feb. 1968 and 5th Feb. 1968:
The plaintiff alleged wrongful dishonour of two cheques for Rs. 19,000 and Rs. 7,900, respectively. The defendant bank contended that the cheque for Rs. 19,000 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and discrepancies in the signature, while the cheque for Rs. 7,900 was dishonoured because it was from the missing cheque book, and the drawer's signature differed. The court found that the bank acted correctly based on the instructions and the status of the account, and there was no wrongful dishonour.

3. Estoppel from Disputing Payment Made Against Cheque No. CSC/H.S. O47261:
The defendant bank argued that the plaintiff was estopped from disputing the payment made against the cheque No. CSC/H.S. O47261. The court agreed with the bank, noting that the plaintiff had acknowledged the missing cheque book and had not pursued the matter diligently. The court found the plaintiff's conduct inconsistent and unconvincing, supporting the bank's position of estoppel.

4. Plaintiff's Alleged Loss and Damages:
The plaintiff claimed damages for the wrongful debit of Rs. 13,701 and additional losses amounting to Rs. 5,000. The court found no credible evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of loss and damages. The plaintiff's behavior and lack of prompt action undermined his claims. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer the alleged losses due to the bank's actions.

5. Defendant's Alleged Negligence in Encashing the Cheque for Rs. 13,701:
The plaintiff alleged that the bank was negligent in encashing the cheque for Rs. 13,701. The defendant bank provided evidence that due care and diligence were exercised in processing the cheque. The court accepted the testimony of the bank employees, who confirmed that standard procedures were followed, and there was no negligence. The court held that the bank acted in good faith and without negligence.

6. Relief Entitlement for the Plaintiff:
The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed based on the findings that the bank acted appropriately, there was no forgery, and the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence or loss. The court dismissed the suit with costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding no evidence of forgery, wrongful dishonour, or negligence by the defendant bank. The plaintiff was estopped from disputing the payment made against the cheque, and no damages were awarded. The bank was found to have acted in good faith and without negligence, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.