9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have resulted in any valid credit being made in the accounts of either VIL or FMPL. The Bank i.e. UBI was simply not liable to honour such DDs. It transpires from the charge-sheet that this was an inter-state fraud committed by an organised gang and not in respect of just the two DDs in question, but several others which were fraudulently used for making payments. Counsel for the Petitioners have no answer to the query posed by Court as to whether if the payment had been made by using fake currency, which both Petitioners accepted bonafide, any valid credit could have been given in their accounts by the respective bankers, who may have accepted such currency without checking them first. The answer had to be in the negative. A fak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Pratap Singh sole proprietor of Computech Orbit and Graphics Computer, Muzaffarpur, Bihar purchased computer parts/accessories from FMPL, for which he made payment by way of Demand Draft ('DD') (DD No.295188) dated 3rd December, 1998 for a sum of ₹ 8.50 lakhs drawn on United Bank of India ('UBI'), Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi. According to FMPL, since no dealer/business man in Delhi could have sold computer parts to a purchaser from Bihar on the basis of a cheque, Virender Pratap Singh got the aforementioned DD prepared in the name of FMPL directly. 5. On 8th December, 1998, FMPL deposited the DD with its bank i.e. State Bank of Saurashtra ('SBS'), Nehru Place, New Delhi, which by the time of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters dated 2nd September, 6th October 1999, 17th January and 24th March 2000, UBI had contacted SBS, calling upon them to make the payment of the aforesaid DD. SBS informed UBI by letters dated 25th October, 1999 and 18th January, 2000 that they merely acted as a collecting bank and were not liable to pay the aforementioned amount. It is further stated that since the payment in respect of the DD was not forthcoming from FMPL, UBI sent a legal demand notice dated 30th October, 2001 calling upon it to remit the outstanding amount. Since FMPL had also failed to remit the outstanding amount, the OA was filed. 9. By an order dated 1st August, 2013 the DRT allowed the said application and held that UBI would be entitled to recover a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussions between SSS and VIL, the SSS received DD No.295191 dated 6th November, 1998 favouring VIL in the sum of ₹ 7.50 lacs. SSS by its letter dated 17th November, 1998 forwarded the said DD to VIL against the purchase order of Pusa Engineering College received through M/s. Computech Orbit. 13. On receiving the DD, VIL deposited it with its bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce ('OBC') Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi on 19th November, 1998. The said DD was in turn presented by OBC for collection to UBI and it was honoured. The proceeds upon encashment were credited to the account of VIL on 21st November, 1998. Thereafter, VIL supplied the material to SSS by two invoices, both dated 23rd November, 1998. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 72 of the Contract Act, 1872 and held that once the Appellant in that case had proved receipt of the bank draft towards sale consideration and the bank had been unable to show irregularity in the same, there was no need for the Appellant to prove that the bank draft was genuine since its banker had made the payment thereunder. In such circumstances, it was held that on the rule of equity enshrined in Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the sale could not be held to be suspect and there was no liability on the Appellant to refund the amount to the bank. 19. The Court is unable to accept the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in Rajesh Gupta (supra). The facts set out in the said judgment in para 6 do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just the two DDs in question, but several others which were fraudulently used for making payments. 21. Counsel for the Petitioners have no answer to the query posed by Court as to whether if the payment had been made by using fake currency, which both Petitioners accepted bonafide, any valid credit could have been given in their accounts by the respective bankers, who may have accepted such currency without checking them first. The answer had to be in the negative. A fake currency, even if acted upon bonafide and given credit, could not have resulted in such credit being continued once the fraud was discovered. The principle can be no different in the instant case. 22. Consequently, the Court finds that in both cases, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
