Karnataka High Court
Bank Of India vs M/S S.G.P Prajwal Agro Farms on 20 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2643
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.NO.1286 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970, HAVING
ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE
PLOT NO.C-5, G-BLOCK, BANDRA
KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI;
ITS BRANCH AT CRESCENT COURT
K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S. VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. S.G.P. PRAJWAL AGRO FARMS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR SHRI.K.P. SOMANATHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O, SHRI. PUTTACHAR
R/O AGRAHARA, 1ST CROSS
2
DOOR NO.34, MARUTHI LAYOUT
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY-577 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
PROPOSED R2 IS SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED: 11.04.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.67/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.469/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHICKMAGALUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Bank of India, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,025/- (Rupees One lakh fifty one thousand and twenty five only) along with future interest.
2. It was the case of the appellant-Bank that it had sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs fifty thousand only) out of which it had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) to M/s. 3 Canara Enterprises on the instruction of the first defendant. It was the case of the appellant-Bank that the loan account of first defendant had become a non performing asset and defendant No.1 and second defendant, who is a guarantor, were due a sum of Rs.1,01,864.35 with interest as on 09.08.2008. It was stated that the appellant-Bank was totally entitled to Rs.1,50,325/- as on the date of filing of the suit.
3. The Trial Court agreed with the contentions of the appellant-plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for.
4. First defendant preferred a Regular Appeal contending that the Bank had committed a fraud on him in disbursing the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was also contended that the plea of the Bank that it had disbursed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-could have been accepted only if the Bank had paid the amount by way of Demand Draft.
4
5. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff- Bank did not prove that it had actually disbursed Rs.3,00,000/- to M/s. Canara Enterprises. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that M/s. Canara Enterprises had issued a cash bill in which the particulars of the product called Green House had been supplied.
6. The Appellate Court took note of the fact that the bill was only a computer generated bill in which the address of M/s. Canara Enterprises was not mentioned and it did not contain any date. The Appellate Court also took note of the oral evidence of PW.1 in which he has stated that he did not know what were the documents obtained from M/s. Canara Enterprises while opening an account. Thereafter, the Appellate court on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence had come to the conclusion that the entries made in the account extract of M/s. Canara 5 Enterprises cannot be believed and the said account may be probably a fictitious account in which several cash transactions were made. Thus, the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence, came to clear conclusion that disbursement of Rs.3,00,000/- by the appellant-Bank to M/s. Canara Enterprises at the instance of defendant No.1 had not been proved. This finding is a finding of fact which based on re- appreciation of evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Bank contended that the Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has to provide reasons for it. He also contended that the Appellate Court is bound to disclose its reason for reversal of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. He also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1905 in the case of Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2823 in the case 6 of Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur and others and in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1607 in the case of S.V.R. Mudaliar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Mrs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Dead) by LRs. and others.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant-Bank. In my view, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
9. I say so because, the appellant-Bank has filed a suit which was decreed by the Trial Court and the same has been reversed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the disbursement of Rs.3,00,000/- was not proved. This is finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence. The Appellate Court, being the final fact finding Court, is entitled to reverse the decree of the Trial Court by recording a finding of fact on re-appreciation of the evidence.
7
10. The Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has elaborately considered and re-appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and it has also categorically stated that the learned trial judge failed to ascertain the factual position of the matter and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff Bank has made out a case for granting the relief sought for in the suit.
11. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial judge is against law, facts, evidence and probabilities of the case.
12. I am of the view that the Appellate Court was entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was not sustainable. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank on the citations are without any merit. In the instant case, it is not as if there was no reason at all for the Appellate Court to reverse the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 8
13. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD