9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credits Balance 10/12/97 By Balance/Totals as per last statement Brought Forward (To loan disburse) 25,00,000 Dr. 25,00,000 01/01/98 To intt upto 31.12.1997 18,443.64 26/03/98 To intt upto 26.03.1998 71,785.96 27/03/98 By Transfer 12,960 29/07/98 To intt upto 31.07.1998 2,29,633 30/09/98 To intt upto 24.09.1998 74,644 23/12/98 By Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To interest accrued from 01/01/99 to 05/12/2000 785529 Dr. 7,84,415 6. Since Ex.P-13 has been certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge has held that entries reflected in Ex.P-13 have to be treated as correct. 7. Before analyzing Ex.P-13 viz-a-viz the challenge to the entries therein recorded, we would note at the outset that the appellant was denied the right to file a written statement and had no defence and thus was not permitted to lead any evidence. Thus, the fate of the appellant has to be decided limited to the question whether the plaintiff proved its case. 8. Needless to state a defendant who has not filed a written statement can always cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and can succeed if the defendant demolishes the credibility of the witnesses of the plaintiff or otherwise is able to demolish the case of the plaintiff. 9. The challenge by the appellant to Ex.P-13 was predicated by cross examining the sole witness of the bank, examined as PW-1, with respect to the debit entry in sum of ₹ 42,480/- r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bank was sold in sum of ₹ 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs). 13. Suffice would it be to state that a bank statement of account certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act has not to be treated as a conclusive proof. Section 4 of the said Act only raises a presumption to the truthfulness and correctness of a statement of account certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act. In the decision reported as AIR 1967 SC 221 Chandradhar Goswami Ors. vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd. it was held:- It is clear from a bare perusal of the section that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them. xxxxxx It will be clear that S.4 gives a special privilege to banks and allows certified copies of their accounts to be produced by them and those certified copies become prima f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f account was prepared. He also stated that the stated loan ledger wherefrom the debit entry was reflected was not produced. He also stated that he had not prepared Ex.P-13 and categorically stated that he could not tell about the details of the interest which have been debited in the account and more so the stated consolidated interest entry dated 6.12.2000. 20. It is obvious that the bank has not been able to prove the debit entry in dispute. 21. We need not, thus, deal with the debit entry in sum of ₹ 42,480/- as the said debit would make difference to the case of the appellant. 22. The purity of the statement of account Ex.P-13 has been seriously dented by the manner in which the bank has made debit entries pertaining to interest which had become payable. For the loan in sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- availed of on 10.12.1997, interest has been debited in sum of ₹ 18,443.64 up to 31.12.1997 i.e. interest component for 21 days is ₹ 18,443.64. Thereafter, with effect from 1.1.1998 till 26.3.1998, interest has been debited in sum of ₹ 71,785.96. A measly sum of ₹ 12,960/- had been received by the bank thereby reducing the debit balance by said mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
