1976 (1) TMI 190 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper signing, verification, and presentation of the plaint.
2. Whether the suit claim is a 'right' under Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India.
3. Timeliness of the suit.
4. Validity of Article 149 of the Limitation Act.
5. Existence of a contract between the Department of Supply and Ratilal Kameshwar Lal Bhatt for supply of ground sheets.
6. Bank's awareness of the procedure and duties of the plaintiff's officials.
7. Fraudulent and dishonest actions of Mahinder Pal Singhal.
8. Criminal conspiracy between Mahinder Pal Singhal and Manak Chand Jain.
9. Theft or removal of inspection notes by Mahinder Pal Singhal.
10. Opening of a current account by Manak Chand Jain under a false name.
11. Ulterior motive behind opening the account.
12. Withdrawals made by Manak Chand Jain.
13. Bank acting as an agent for collection.
14. Representation by the bank regarding collection for M/s. R.K. Bhatt.
15. Payment of bills under mistake caused by fraud.
16. Deception of officials into issuing cheques.
17. Inducement of belief by the bank.
18. Completeness of fraud particulars.
19. Conversion of cheques by the bank.
20. Retention of property in cheques by the Union of India.
21. Legal liability of the bank to refund the amount.
22. Plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
23. Negligence or breach of duty by the bank.
24. Estoppel from claiming any amount.
25. Plaintiff's entitlement to interest.
26. Plaintiff's entitlement to the principal amount.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1:
The plaint was properly signed and verified by authorized persons under Order 27, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint was duly presented by the counsel for the Union of India. This issue is held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 24:
The right claimed in the suit relates to the property and is covered by Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India. The right arising otherwise than out of a contract is succeeded by the Government of India. Issue No. 24 is held against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 25:
The suit was filed within the 60-year limitation period provided by Article 149 of the Limitation Act of 1908. The suit is therefore within time.

Issue No. 26:
Article 149 of the Limitation Act does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan. Issue No. 26 is held against the defendant.

Issue No. 2:
The contract for the supply of ground sheets was established between the Department of Supply of the Government of India and Ratilal Kameshwar Lal Bhatt on October 1, 1945. This issue is held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3:
The defendant bank was not aware of the detailed procedure or duties of the plaintiff's officials, and there was no evidence that the bank tried to ascertain or verify the procedure. This issue is held against the plaintiff.

Issues No. 4, 5, and 9:
There is no direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Mahinder Pal Singhal and Manak Chand Jain. However, it is established that un-cancelled inspection notes were used fraudulently to obtain payments. The issues are held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues No. 6 and 8:
Manak Chand Jain opened the account under the false name of R.K. Bhatt with the ulterior motive of defrauding the Government by obtaining payments fraudulently. These issues are held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 11:
Withdrawals from the bank were made by Manak Chand Jain, as established by the handwriting expert and the testimony of R.K. Bhatt. This issue is held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues No. 10 and 13:
The defendant bank acted as an agent for collection on behalf of R.K. Bhatt (Manak Chand Jain) and collected the proceeds of the cheques. These issues are held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues No. 12, 14, 15, and 16:
There is no evidence that the bank induced any belief or made any representation to the officials of the Deputy Accountant-General. The plaintiff failed to prove that the officials were deceived into issuing the cheques. These issues are held against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 17:
No arguments were addressed on the lack of particulars of fraud, and no evidence was led by the plaintiff of any fraud committed by the defendant. This issue does not call for determination.

Issues No. 18, 19, 22, 27, 28, and 29:
The defendant bank is guilty of conversion by collecting the cheques and paying the proceeds to its account holder. The property in the cheques remained vested in the Union of India. The defendant is liable to refund the amount collected. These issues are held in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues No. 7, 20, 21, and 30:
The defendant bank was negligent in opening the account without making proper inquiries and is not entitled to the protection under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff is estopped from claiming any amount due to its own negligence. These issues are held in favor of the defendant.

Issue No. 32:
Interest is not awarded to the plaintiff as the bank did not retain the money but passed it on to R.K. Bhatt, and the loss was occasioned due to the plaintiff's negligence. This issue is held against the plaintiff.

Issues No. 23 and 31:
Due to estoppel by negligence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from the defendant. These issues are held against the plaintiff.

Conclusion:
The suit fails and is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.