Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 25 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DJ-01 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 13401/2016
CNR No. DLCT 002366-2015
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970
(Act No. 5 of 1970)
having its office at:
7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-66
and having amongst other CDPC sum back office branch at:
PNB House, 1st floor,
Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi. ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. HDFC BANK LTD.
a corporate body with perpetual succession,
incorporated and constituted under the Companies Act, 1956,
and a banking company within the meaning of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949,
having its registered office at:
Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018
and a Service Branch office, amongst others at:
1st floor, Kailash Building, 26,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
through Chief Manager.
2. HDFC BANK LTD.
Through Branch Manager,
Vaishali Branch,
VC-1, Vaishali Sector-1,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Shri Varinder Pal Singh
Senior Manager,
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 1 /33
HDFC BANK LTD.,
Fraud Investigation Cell,
Third Floor, A-111,
Sector-4, Noida, U.P.
4. Shri Dayanand
s/o Shri Raj Kumar
r/o House No. 999, Pragati Vihar Khora Colony,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201010
5. Smt. Akhilesh Sharma
w/o Late Shri J.N. Sharma
r/o F-159, Kamla Nagar,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh ....DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 29.09.2015
Date of Reserving Judgment : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs 3,34,010/- pleading inter-alia as follows: That the plaintiff bank is a body corporate with perpetual succession, constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act 1972). The plaintiff bank has its centralized drafts payable center (CDPC) cum back office, Working as Service Branch at PNB House, First Floor, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi.
2. That the defendant Bank is a body corporate with perpetual succession, constituted under the Companies Act and is a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its service branch office at Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
3. That the defendant no. 1 sent a cheque for collection at the service branch of the plaintiff bearing cheque no. TPV 910696 dated CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 2 /33 11.03.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- purportedly drawn by defendant no. 5, an account holder with Kamla Nagar Branch of the plaintiff bank at Agra, Uttar Pradesh allegedly in favour of defendant no. 4, an account holder with branch of HDFC Bank situated at VC-1, Vaishali, Sector-1, Ghaziabad, UP.
4. That the plaintiff bank believed the cheque to be genuine and on the strength of the truncated image of PNB cheque no. TPV 910696 dated 11.03.2013 of Rs. 2,30,000/- as presented by defendant no. 1 made the payment on 13.03.2013 to the credit of defendant no. 4 through CTS clearing by debiting the Saving Fund Account no. 18420000100105644 of their customer Smt. Akhilesh Sharma i.e. the defendant no. 5.
5. That the plaintiff bank at their branch at Kamla Nagar, Agra, UP received a complaint from their account holder i.e. defendant no. 5 who complained that somebody had made illegal and unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 2,30,000/- from her saving account by issuing false and fabricated cheque bearing no. TPV 910696 dated 11.03.2013.
6. That the account holder Smt. Akhilesh Sharma i.e. the defendant no. 5 vide her letter dated 28.03.2013 informed the plaintiff bank that she had not issued any cheque to anyone since original cheque leaf of the same series and number was lying blank in her custody and possession and accordingly demanded back the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was unauthorizedly debited from her saving account. To facilitate the investigation, defendant no. 5 also produced the copy of the genuine blank cheque in her possession bearing the same cheque number as that of forged cheque to the plaintiff bank.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 3 /33
7. That the plaintiff bank then passed on the entire information received from Defendant No 5 to the collecting bank i.e. defendant no. 1 stating that defendant no. 5 had not issued any cheque in favour of defendant no. 4 and the payment of Rs. 2,30,000/- was collected by defendant no. 1 bank through CTS clearing on the basis of fake and fabricated instrument.
8. That the plaintiff bank lodged a claim of Rs. 2,30,000/- with defendant no. 1 and 2. The plaintiff bank vide their letters dated 01.04.2013, 15.05.2013, 20.06.2013, 18.07.2013 and several other letters requested defendant no. 1 and 2 to freeze the account of their customer (Defendant No 4) immediately and apprise them the balance available in his account and to deliver for verification and records, the impugned original cheque in the possession of defendant no. 1 on the basis of which the payment was collected from plaintiff bank. However, no reply whatsoever was received by plaintiff bank from defendant No 1 and 2 bank.
9. That since the payment processing was done on the basis of images, the onus of due diligence shifts to the presenting bank that instrument deposited is genuine one and is being collected for a bonafide customer of the bank as provided under explanation II of Section 131 of the NI Act as per which it shall be the duty of the banker who receives payment based on an electronic image of a truncated cheque held with him, to verify the prima facie genuineness of the cheque to be truncated and any fraud, forgery or tampering apparent on the face of the instrument that can be verified with due diligence and ordinary care.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 4 /33
10. That the defendant no. 1 which collected the payment on behalf of defendant no. 4 failed to exercise due diligence as per the conditions laid down in the amended NI Act and that the defendant no. 2 utterly failed to enforce KYC norms in letter and spirit and that the defendant no. 1 also failed to observe all precautions which a prudent banker does under normal circumstances.
11. That as per the Plaintiff the cheque presented for payment was a forged one in which right from cheque Performa, signatures, cheque number everything was forged, therefore, there was no mandate by Plaintiff Bank's account holder Smt. Akhilesh Sharma,( Defendant No.5), to pay the amount. In literal sense, said instrument was not a 'cheque' in law but a document which was in the cheque form on which the signature of the drawer was forged. Thus, the payment was collected by Defendant no.1 on the basis of fake instrument.
12. That the Defendant No.2 dealing with the opening of account of Shri Dayanand, did not care to be cautious and dealt with the whole affair as a routine with closed eyes.
13. That the Defendant No.1 & 2 instead of co-operating and resolving the matter failed to even reply the numerous letters written by Plaintiff Bank. The Plaintiff Bank besides requesting to hand over the original cheque also requested to Debit freeze the account & advise the Plaintiff Bank about the available balance in the account of Defendant No 4.
14. That the attitude of Defendant no.1 & 2 show that they have no intention to pay the amount which was wrongly and by mistake debited from the account of Defendant No.5 due to the fraud being played by forgery of drawer's signature presented by Defendant No.1 CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 5 /33 and 2 while was in the form of cheque which carries false representation that it was valid cheque duly signed by the drawer. The said misrepresentation appeared on the face of document which is purported to be cheque. The Plaintiff Bank being deceived could not detect the fraud being played by forgery of drawer's signature.
15. That the Plaintiff Bank for the Redressal of Grievance, on 07.06.2013 approached the Panel constituted by RBI for settlement of disputes & claims under Dispute Resolution Mechanism under Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The Panel for Resolution of Disputes on 07.05.2014 returned the said application to the Plaintiff/Applicant Bank since the Original Disputed Paid Instrument (disputed cheque) had not been made available to PRD for examination and decision by the Defendant/Respondent Bank (HDFC Bank) as the same was allegedly handed over to the Plaintiff Bank by Defendant/Respondent Bank.
16. That as per the Plaintiff, it never received the disputed Original cheque from the Defendant Bank. However, during the course of proceedings before PRD, Defendant Bank handed over to the PRD, the photocopy of alleged letter dated 02.05.2013 signed by Defendant No.3, addressed to Plaintiff Bank showing alleged receipt of Original Cheque by Plaintiff Bank under the seal of the CDPC Branch.
17. That the Plaintiff Bank, after coming to know from PRD about the alleged letter dated 02.05.2013 of Defendant No.3, through their electronic mail dated 03.01.2014 issued to Shri Virander Pal Singh (Defendant No 3) sought clarification regarding the alleged receipt of letter along with the impugned original Cheque at the service Branch office of Plaintiff Bank. The reply of Defendant No.3 to said email on CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 6 /33 04.01.2014 was shocking & was devoid of even an iota of truth. The Plaintiff Bank had also drawn the attention of Defendant No.3 on the Plaintiff Bank's registered letter dated 15.05.2013, whereby the Plaintiff Bank requested the Defendant Bank to hand over the Original cheque in their possession, to which no reply whatsoever, was received from Defendant Bank. Further, Defendant No.3 failed to furnish the name of the official who had allegedly received the impugned cheque. Hence, the version of Defendant Bank is nothing but a cock & bull story to shriek from their responsibility as a Banker to keep the impugned Original Cheque in their safe custody.
18. That the Plaintiff Bank duly notified the Defendant bank by issuing Demand notice dated 04.08.2015 sent through their advocate requesting the Defendant Bank to pay back an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- forthwith alongwith interest but of no avail.
19. That the criminal complaint for cheating and forgery was also filed against Defendant No.4 on 05.04.2013 before Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, New Delhi and the same is pending disposal.
20. That the Defendant No.5 has been impleaded as Performa Defendant, as such, no relief has been claimed Defendant No.5, whatsoever. However, Plaintiff Bank had settled the claim of Defendant No.5 on 13.05.2013.
21. That despite the receipt of the notice, the Defendant No.1 &2 never bothered to remit back the amount collected from Plaintiff Bank on the basis of false and fabricated instrument.
22. That the Defendant No.1 to 4 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,34,010 (Rupees three lacs thirty four thousand ten only) jointly as well as severally together with interest, pendente lite and future and other CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 7 /33 incidental & legal charges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:
a) pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff Bank and against the Defendant No.1 to 4 for a payment of sum of Rs.3,34,010 (Rupees three lacs thirty four thousand ten only) jointly as well as severally together with costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the money and against the Defendant No.1 to 4;
b) pass such other/further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the Justice.WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO 3
23. The defendant no. 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement contending that the plaint as filed by the plaintiff is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and is an abuse of the process of law and also that the plaint suffers from the vice of suppressio varie, suggestio falsi. It is further contended that the answering defendants in the normal course of business had cleared the cheque in favour defendant no. 4 after necessary verification under CTS clearing. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit with malafide intention which contains false averments and incorrect facts and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the bank account for which the defendant no 4 has collected the proceeds was opened after compliance of Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and taking all care required to be taken for opening a new account. It is further contended that without prejudice defendant no 1 ot 3 have not rendered any negligent service and have merely acted in its oridinary course of banking norms at the time of opening the impugned bank CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 8 /33 account and the defendant bank opened the account in the name of defendant no 4 i.e. Sh Dayanand after following the due procedure laid down by the Reserve Bank of India and the cheque in question was presented in clearing by Defendant No. 4 on 11.03.2013, who holds a bank account bearing no. 04221530002860, with answering Defendant Bank at its Vaishali, Sector-1, Branch, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. It is further stated that the cheque in question was cleared by the Plaintiff i.e. Punjab National Bank. It is further stated that after obtaining the clear funds from the Plaintiff Bank as well as after the time frame prescribed for return of instrument, the defendant No. 4 was permitted to withdraw the amount from its bank account. It is further submitted that no case is made out against the HDFC Bank Ltd. much less in the manner being alleged in the plaint under reply.
It is further stated that it is the duty of the Drawee Bank (i.e., Plaintiff/Punjab National Bank) to ensure and verify the drawer's signature, series of cheque, amount in figures and words does not differ and the cheque is not stale/postdated cheque and while honoring the instrument presented for clearing collection, the genunity of the intrument needs to be ensured by the collecting bank.
It is further submitted that the Defendant Bank verified the genuinity of the Impugned cheque presented in outward clearing and the impugned cheque was collected after checking the validity of the instrument. It is further stated that there was no apparent tampering or alteration visible on the face of the instrument (impugned cheque) with naked eyes or after examining the same under ultraviolet light and the watermark of PNB was also visible on the said instrument when held against light. It is further stated that the defendant acted as CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 9 /33 the agent of collection for the customer whose account was opened after observing Know Your Customer (KYC) guidelines and the impugned cheque was genuine and was collected by the defendant bank in the ordinary course of business after exercising due deligence. It is further submitted that as per plaint, the Defendant Bank failed in exercising due care while clearing the Impugned Cheque as the instrument was forged. It is further submitted that the Defendant Bank followed the procedure/guidelines while clearing the cheque in question under CTS process as formulated by the RBI.
24. As recorded vide order dated 05.12.2019, defendant no. 4 who was served through publication on 02.10.2019 since failed to appear was proceeded ex-parte and the suit qua defendant no. 5 was withdrawn by the plaintiff.
25. No replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
26. Vide order dated 05.12.2019 the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
27. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined only one witness i.e Sh Pramod Kumar Dubey who entered into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint who relied upon the following documents:-
1) Ex. PW 1/1 is the General power of attorney/letter.
2) Mark A is the copy of General power of attorney of Babu Ram Birdi.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 10 /33
3) Mark B is the copy of complaint of Smt Akhilesh Sharma.
4) Ex PW 1/ 2 are the two original cancelled blank cheques.
5) Mark C is the office copy of letters addressed to the defendant.
6) Mark D is the letter of PRD.
7) Mark E are the emails.
8) Ex PW 1/3 is the demand notice dt 04.08.2015.
9) Ex PW 1/ 4 is the police complaint filed before EOW.
10) EX PW 1/ 5 is the statement of account of defendant no 5.
28. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 to 3 and thereafer PE was closed on 02.02.2023.
29. The defendant examined 2 witnesses on their behalf i.e. Ms Sameeksha Pandey as DW-1 and another Sh Ashish Srivastava as DW-2.
DW-1 entered into the witness box and tendered her affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1) Ex. DW 1/A is the authority letter.
2) Ex DW 1/B (OSR) is the power of attorney dt 23.03.2016.
3) Ex DW 1/C (Colly) (page 39 to 47) is the original account opening form alongwith office copy of the documents.
4) Mark A is the copy of statement of account bearing no 05851930004589.
5) Ex DW 1/E is the acknowledgment copy of the letter dt 02.05.2013.
6) Mark B is the copy of reply dt 29.04.2013.
7) Ex DW 1/G is the letter dt 19.11.2013.
8) Mark C is the RBI circular dt 08.08.2012.
30. DW-1 was cross examined at length by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 11 /33
31. Thereafer DW-2 Sh Ashish Srivastava, Assistant Vice President, HDFC Bank was examined who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibited as DW2/A and he relied upon the document which is already exhibited as Ex PW1/D1.
32. DW-2 was also cross examined by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and thereafter DE was closed on the same day i.e. on 21.12.2023.
33. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.
Ld counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the defendant no 1 & 2 banks have failed to exercise due diligence in as much as presenting the truncated image of the cheque in question to the plaintiff bank hence no protection can be granted to the defendants banks under the provisions of Section 131 of the N I Act. It is further submitted that the defendants no 1 & 2 banks did not enforce the KYC norms in its letter and spirit and have thus not taken all the precautions which a prudent banker takes under normal circumstances. It is further submitted that besides the aforesaid, defendant no 1 & 2 bank have failed to hand over the original cheque to the plaintiff bank and as such the defendants banks are liable to make good the losses as suffered and sustained by the plaintiff bank in settling the claim of defendant no 5 together with interest.
34. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS No 1 to 3.
Ld counsel for the defendant has submitted that there is no negligence on the part of defendant no 1 - 3 in collecting the proceeds of the cheque in question which was cleared by the plaintiff bank. It is further submitted that it was the plaintiff bank who is responsible for checking the signatures of its account holder and that defendant no 1 & 3 had collected the proceeds of the cheque in due CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 12 /33 course and in good faith. It is further submitted that the defendant no 1 & 2 bank have taken all due precautions and have complied with all the guidelines as applicable to them in their role of a collecting bank and as such are entitled to the protection afforded under explanation II of Section 131 of the N I Act 1881 and are not liable to refund the amount which has been credited after the cheque has been honoured by the plaintiff bank.
ARGUMENTS HEARD. CONSIDERED.
35. My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP
36. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the plaintiff. PW-1 in his testimony has contended that defendant no. 1 on 13.03.2013, presented the cheque bearing no. TPV910696 dated 11.03.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- purportedly drawn by defendant no. 5 (Smt. Akhilesh Sharma), an account holder of the plaintiff bank, in favour of defendant no. 4, (Sh. Dayanand), an account holder of the Defendant No 2 Bank, Vaishali, Sector-1, Ghaziabad Branch. The plaintiff bank believed the cheque to be genuine on the strength of the truncated image of PNB, cheque bearing no. TPV910696 dated 11.03.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and made the payment in the account of defendant no. 4 by debiting account of defendant no. 5.
It was further stated by the PW-1 that the plaintiff bank received complaint dated 28.03.2013 i.e. Mark B complaining to the plaintiff bank that somebody had made illegal and unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 2,30,000/- from her saving account by issuing false and fabricated cheque bearing no. TPV910696 dated 11.03.2013 for CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 13 /33 an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- in favour of one Sh. Dayanand (defendant no. 4). It was further stated that she has not issued the cheque in question to anybody. Defendant no. 5 vide her letter dated 12.04.2013 produced copy of the original blank cheques bearing TPV number 910696.
37. It is further stated by PW-1 that the plaintiff bank wrote to the defendant no. 1 bank vide Mark C communicating that the defendant bank has facilitated a fake and fraudulent transaction on the basis of forged/fabricated cheque and also that the cheque had not been issued by defendant no. 5 in favour of defendant no. 4. Plaintiff, accordingly, demanded back an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-. The plaintiff also requested defendant no. 1 and 2 to freeze the account of defendant no. 4 and inform the plaintiff bank with the balance available in the account of defendant no. 4 and also to deliver the original cheque in the possession of defendant no. 1 on the basis of which the payment has been collected from the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank also issued letters dated 15.05.2013, 20.06.2013 and 18.07.2013 however, no reply to the same was received.
38. As per the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 bank failed to exercise due diligence and defendant no. 2 failed to enforce KYC norms and also that defendant no. 2 has failed to observe the precautions which a prudent banker observe under normal circumstances i.e. to check the apparent tenor of the instrument, physical feel of the instrument, any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care.
39. As per PW-1, the cheque in question was forged right from cheque performa, SIGNATURES, cheque number and as such there was no mandate to pay under the document upon which the signatures of the drawer (defendant no. 5) was forged.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 14 /33
40. As per PW-1, defendant no. 2 at the time of opening the bank account of defendant no. 4 did not care to be cautious.
41. As per the PW-1, plaintiff bank through their electronic mail dated 03.01.2014 issued to defendant no. 3 sought clarifications with respect to the receipt of letter dated 02.05.2013 by the plaintiff bank which was replied by defendant no. 3 vide email dated 04.01.2014 stating that the original instrument has been handed over to the plaintiff's bank back office at Paharganj on 02.05.2013 pursuant to letter dated 01.04.2013 issued by the plaintiff and that due receipt acknowledging the receipt of the cheque was issued under the seal of the plaintiff bank.
42. PW-1 further contended that the plaintiff bank issued a legal demand notice dated 04.08.2015 (Ex. PW1/6) calling upon the defendant bank to refund the amount with interest.
43. The PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 and in the cross-examination, the witness/PW-1 has admitted that Ex. PW1/D1 was cleared and paid by the plaintiff bank in due course.
44. It is further been admitted that at the time of payment of the cheque presented through CTS system, the particulars of cheque such as name of payee, amount in words and figure, date, account number and signature of the drawer is checked. PW-1 expressed his inability to tell whether the signature on Ex. PW1/D1 were genuine or not. It was further stated by PW-1 that signatures on Ex. PW1/D1 tallies with the signatures held in the bank record. It is further stated by PW-1 that while processing the cheque through CTS, if any discrepancy/deviation in the instrument is found, the CTS system gives a warning for rejection of the instrument through IQA failure (Image Quality Assessment). It was further admitted by PW-1 that the CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 15 /33 plaintiff bank received the image of the cheque through Clearing House Interface. PW-1 admitted that he cannot say whether the defendant bank has followed the procedure and guidelines of RBI or that the cheque in question was cleared by CTS scanner of the defendant bank at its first presentation.
45. In view of the aforesaid testimony, it has been duly proved by the plaintiff the fact that it received the complaint dated 28.03.2013 (Mark B) whereby the account holder of the plaintiff has informed the plaintiff bank that an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been withdrawn from her account. The PW-1 has also been able to prove the fact that defendant no. 5 has handed over the original unissued and undated blank cheque bearing no. TPV910696 to the Plaintiff bank.
46. Thus the plaintiff has been able to prove the fact that a forgery has been committed with defendant no. 5 from whose bank account an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- were fraudulently withdrawn through defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 who had presented the impugned forged cheque for payment to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank acting upon the truncated image of the cheque having been sent to it and trusting the implied undertaking of the presenting banker to the effect that the cheque presented for payment is genuine, made payments. On the basis of the implied undertaking, the plaintiff bank had paid an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- upon verification of the signatures of defendant no. 5 as per their bank records which tallied with the signatures of Defendant No 5.
47. Thus the plaintiff has been able to prove that in fact fraudulent transaction has taken place whereby the account holder of the plaintiff was defrauded. In the present case, the entire onus to prove the fact CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 16 /33 that defendants no. 1 to 3 had exercised due diligence on their part rested squarely on the shoulders of the defendants 1 to 3 since the plaintiff as per the pleadings and in terms of the testimony of PW-1 has been able to show and prove on record that there existed a duty to take care by the defendant no. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff.
48. In order to better understand the issue in hand and to adjudicate as to whether the conduct of the Defendants No 1-3 were negligent, it would be relevant to note the Reserve Bank of India practice and guidelines with respect to Cheque Truncation System (CTS) since it is not in dispute that the truncated image of the cheque was sent to the Plaintiff Bank through CTS scanner.
49. In the traditional banking system of cheque clearance, one has to present a cheque to his bank, which will send that cheque to a clearing house, upon clearance of drawee bank, the money was credited to account. It usually took 3 days on an average to clear cheques as it involved physical movement of cheques. Cheque truncation is the conversion of a physical cheque into a substitute electronic form for transmission to the paying bank. Cheque truncation eliminates cumbersome physical presentation of the cheque and saves time and processing costs.
50. Clearance by cheques truncation system (CTS) is to avoid delay & physical movement of cheques. As per procedural guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (Version 2.0) laid down by Reserve Bank of India, Chapter III, Guideline 3.1 lays down procedure at the Presenting Branch, it says :
"As the payment processing is done on the basis of images, the onus of due diligence shifts to the Presenting Bank, as provided under explanation II to Section 131 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The member banks have to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) norms in CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 17 /33 letter and spirit. The banks should observe all precautions which a prudent banker does under normal circumstances, e.g., to check the apparent tenor of the instrument, physical feel of the instrument, any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care, etc. For enhanced attention, based on exceptions, the banks may employ suitable risk management techniques like scrutiny of high value transactions, limit based checking by officials, new accounts alerts, etc. The presenting bank takes full responsibility for collecting on behalf of the intended payee and exercises due diligence as per the conditions laid down in the amended Negotiable Instruments Act. So presenting Bank is required to enforce KYC and make precautions like to check the apparent tenor of the instrument, any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care, etc."
51. It is also provided in practice guidelines that all cheques received for collection over the bank's counters are required to be branded with the bank's special crossing stamp prior to scanning. The images of all cheques is to be captured along with MICR data using scanners set up for the purpose. Presenting bank has to ensure proper systems and procedures in place to see that the rejects of the MICR line are appropriately repaired and presenting Banks is required to pass on the value in the MICR repair tag for any correction/changes/rejects on the MICR band of the cheques in the capture files. At the time of scanning the instruments, the reader sorter/scanner will print a single line endorsement on the back of each instrument which shall be the unique identifier for the instrument. The printing of the endorsement implies that the collecting bank undertakes to credit the payee's account on realisation of the cheque and that the instrument deposited is a genuine one and is being collected for a bonafide customer of the bank. At the time of scanning of a cheque data captured by the banks' capture system should be validated using the CHM generated by the CHI to avoid rejection at the CHI. The master table information, of CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 18 /33 each bank such as sort codes, transaction codes, branch codes, bank codes, city codes, calendar, and designated branches, etc., of the capture system should be synchronized with that of Clearing House Master Table. Beside all these precautions presenting bank needs to perform IQA validations at the capture system. Each image shall have an IQA indicator tag indicating the outcome of the IQA test carried out by the capture system. The banks are required to take care to synchronize the IQA parameters at the capture system, to avoid excessive rejection at the CHI. So all the above mentioned precautions are to be carried out while scanning the cheque to bring into truncated from, to avoid any possibility of fabrication.
52. Thus it is clear from the above that it is not sufficient to state that presenting bank's responsibility is restricted only to check "apparent tenor" and "physical feel" of instrument or to check any tampering visible by naked eyes. Above discussion of guidelines, first of all require that each of the member bank have to enforce KYC norms, moreover, beside checking apparent tenor and physical feel of the instrument, suitable risk management techniques are to be applied/ The electronic image of cheque is to be captured with MICR (magnetic ink corrector recognition) data using scanner. Collecting- bank is required to pass on the value in MICR. Moreover, each electronic image of cheque also have IQA indicator and collecting bank is required to take care that at the time of scanning of cheque, it synchronize the IQ parameter.
53. The law with respect to the liability of a collecting bank is contained in section 131 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Section 131 is reproduced as under:-
"131. Non-liability of banker receiving payment of cheque.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 19 /33 A banker who has in good faith and without negligence received payment for a customer of a cheque crossed generally or specially to himself shall not, in case the title to the cheque proves defective, incur any liability to the true owner of the cheque by reason only of having received such payment.
Explanation 1. A banker receives payment of a crossed cheque for a customer within the meaning of this section notwithstanding that he credits his customer's account with the amount of the cheque before receiving payment thereof.
Explanation II. It shall be the duty of the banker who receives payment based on an electronic image of a truncated cheque held with him, to verify the prima facie genuineness of the cheque to be truncated and any fraud, forgery or tampering apparent on the face of the instrument that can be verified with due diligence and ordinary care."
54. Under this section, a collecting bank has protection only if the collecting bank, in good faith and without negligence, receives payment of the customer by a cheque, i.e. if there is negligence in receiving of a cheque on behalf of the customer, the collecting bank would be liable for negligence. The law in this regard is contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern, 1990 (1) SCC 484. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are paras 9 to 11 and 33 which read as under:
"9. What is the standard of care to be taken by a bank in opening, an account? In the Practice and Law of Banking by H.P. Sheldon, 11th Edn., in chapter 5 at page 64 it is said-
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 20 /33 "Before opening an account for a customer who is not already known to him, a banker should make proper preliminary inquiries, In particular, he should obtain references, from responsible persons with regard to the identity, integrity and reliability of the proposed customer.
55. Sh. M.L. Tannan In Banking Law and Practice in India, 18th edn., at page 198 says:
"Before opening a new account, a banker should take certain precautions and must ascertain by inquiring from the person wishing to open the account, if such person is unknown to the banker, as to his profession or trade as well as the nature of the account he proposes to open. By making, necessary inquiries from the references, furnished by the new customer, the banker can easily verify such information and Judge whether or not the person wishing to open an account is a desirable customer. It is necessary for a bank to inquire, from responsible parties, given as references by the customer, as to the latter's integrity and respectability, an omission of which may result in serious consequences not only for the banker concerned, but also for other bankers and the general public."
56 Thus, one of the tests of deciding whether the bank was negligent, though not always conclusive, is to see whether the Rules or instructions of the banks were followed or not. The Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern 1990 (67) Company Cases 255 laid down the law as under:--
"To enable a bank to avail of the immunity under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a collecting banker, he has to bring himself within the conditions formulated by the section. The conditions are: (a) that the banker should act in good faith and CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 21 /33 without negligence in receiving a payment, that is, in the process of collection (b) that the banker should receive payment for a customer on behalf of him, (c) that the person for whom the banker acts must be his customer, and (d) that the cheque should be one crossed generally or specially to himself. The receipt of payment contemplated by the section is one from the drawee bank. It is settled law that the onus of bringing himself within the section rests on the banker. As a general rule, a banker before accepting a customer, must take reasonable care to satisfy himself that the person in question is of good reputation; and if he fails to do so, he will run the risk of forfeiting the protection given by Section 131 of the Act, but 'reasonable care' will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The test of negligence for the purpose of Section 131 of the Act is whether the transaction of paying in any given cheque coupled with the circumstances antecedent and present are so out of the ordinary that they ought to arouse doubts in the banker's mind and cause him to make inquiries. Disregard to the bank's own regulations may be evidence of negligence. While dealing with a customer for collecting a cheque, there is no contractual relation between the collecting banker and the true owner. The duty is implied by law. A conduct beneficial to the customer at the expense of the true owner, when the bank acts in good faith and without negligence is no breach of that duty."
57. The law with respect to the liability of the collecting banker, considering the provisions of Sections 131 and 131A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, is contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation vs. State Bank of India, 2004 (2) SCC 425, Relevant CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 22 /33 para of the judgment where the law has been stated is para 11 and which reads as under:
"11. The principles governing the liability of a collecting banker have also been extracted in the impugned judgment. They read as follows:
"(1) As a general rule the collecting banker shall be exposed to his usual liability under common law for conversion or for money had and received, as against the 'true owner of a cheque or a draft, in the event the customer from who he collects the cheque or draft has no title or a defective title.
(2) The banker, however, may claim protection from such normal liability provided he fulfills strictly the conditions laid down in Section 131A of the Act and one of those conditions is that he must have received the payment in good faith and without negligence. (3) It is the banker seeking protection who has on his shoulders the onus of proving that he acted in good faith and without negligence. (4) The standard of care to be exercised by the collecting banker to escape the charge of negligence depends upon the general practice of banker which may go on changing from time to time with the enormous, spread of banking activities and cases decided a few decades ago may not probably offer an unfailing guidance in determining the question about negligence today. (5) Negligence is a question of fact and what is relevant in determining the liability of a collecting banker is not his negligence in opening the account of the customer- but negligence in the collection of the relevant cheque unless, of course, the opening of the account and depositing of the cheque in question therein form part and parcel of one scheme as where the account is opened with the cheque in question or deposited therein so soon after the opening of CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 23 /33 the account as to lead to an inference that the depositing the cheque and opening the account are interconnected moves in a integrated plan.
(6) Negligence in opening the account such as failure to fulfill the procedure for opening an account which is prescribed by the bank itself or opening an account of, an unknown person or non-existing person or with dubious introduction may lead to a cogent though not conclusive, proof of negligence particularly if the cheque in question has been deposited in the account soon after the opening thereof. (7) The standard of care expected from a banker in collecting the cheque does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination but disregarding the circumstances about the cheque which on the face of it give rise to a suspicion may amount to negligence on the part of the collecting banker. (8) The question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the stand point of the true owner towards whom the banker owes no contractual duty but the statutory duty which is created by this section and it is a price which the banker pays for seeking protection, under the statute, from the otherwise larger liability he would be exposed to under common law.
(9) Allegation of contributory negligence against the paying banker clause provide no defence for collecting banker who has not collected the amount in good faith and without negligence."
58. A reference to the aforesaid principles culled out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (supra) shows that there is never any mandate to pay under forged cheque or forged bank draft and if payment is collected under such a bank draft by bank, such bank is liable for conversion CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 24 /33 and therefore is bound to make payment of the amount of the forged cheque bank draft. The collecting banker can only avoid its liability provided it strictly fulfills the conditions laid down under Sections 131 and 131A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 i.e. it must show that the payment has been received by it in good faith and without negligence. Supreme Court has further observed that though negligence is towards collecting of the instrument however the opening of the account is closely related to the deposit of the instrument and encashment thereof will give indication of the lack of good faith on behalf of the collecting banker. Supreme Court has also observed that the duties of a bank has changed over a period of time and the duty of a collecting banker has to be seen from today's standpoint of the requisite facts for opening of account and collection of the instrument inasmuch as there is a considerable development with respect to the banking practices. Finally and most importantly, Supreme Court has held that allegation of contributory negligence against the paying banker (and which is the respondent/plaintiff bank in this case) does not provide a defence for a collecting banker who has not collected an instrument in good faith without negligence.
59. In the facts before the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-
operative Marketing Federation (supra) the Supreme Court held that the collecting banker was liable/responsible by making the following observations in para 14 of the judgment:
"14. The Respondent's Branch Manager gave evidence. From his evidence it is clear that the person who called himself K.Narayhanan opened an account on the introduction of an account holder by name Dharam Panicker. In the Account Opening Form the address is given only as "Kaniyarath P.O.Kallisseri". Thus an absolutely vague CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 25 /33 address was given. The Bank made no enquiries as to the creditworthiness of he said K.Narayjanan or as to his full address or even about his telephone number. Thereafter even though initially the account was opened with only 20/- the exact amount of 280/- was deposited for purposes of receipt of a cheque book. The 1 st Respondent bank does not seem to have put on its guard, even when a cheque for a very large amount i.e. ₹1,00,000/- was deposited soon thereafter. In cross-examination the Branch Manager admits that in the Account opening form neither the name or the occupation of the person introducing had been filled up. He admits that not enquiry was made regarding the nature of business of K.Narayhanan or where the place of business was. Even after it was found out that a cheque had been forged and stop payment notice had been issued, no enquiry was made by the Bank with the introducer. When asked why no enquiries were made, the answer given was that the bank has no responsibility to look in to it. Another factor which mitigates against the 1st Respondent Bank is that it made no attempt to lead the evidence of the person who had introduced the account holder."
60. In the present case it has not come in the cross-examination of PW-1 that in which manner, defendant no. 1 to 3 had failed to exercise any due diligence at the time of scanning/transmitting the truncated image of the cheque in question. As stated above, PW-1 has admitted that the truncated image of the cheque was received by the plaintiff through Clearing House Interface (CHI) who despite a specific question having put to him showed his inability to specify in what manner the defendant had not followed the procedures and guidelines of RBI. The plaintiff bank was duly issued with Ex. PW1/D1 togetherwith the printout of single line endorsement on the back of CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 26 /33 the cheque (Ex. PW1/D1) i.e. the unique identifier for the instrument. The printing of the endorsement implies that the collecting bank undertakes to credit the payee's account on realisation of the cheque and that the instrument deposited is a genuine one and is being collected for a bonafide customer of the bank.
61. DW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that there was no apparent tampering or alteration visible on the face of the instrument (Ex. PW1/D1) with naked eye or after examining the same under ultra violate light. It was further stated that water mark of PNB was also visible on the said instruments (Ex. PW1/D1) when held against light and accordingly, the said cheque was sent for clearing in its normal course to the plaintiff under CTS.
62. RBI guidelines does not confine itself to just state that there was no difference in apparent tenor and physical feel of the instrument. At noted above scanning machine is having inbuilt MICR data, moreover, at the time of scanning cheque, data captured by the electronic image is required to be validated by using CHM which contain all the master information regarding each of the bank, code, transaction code, branch code, city code etc. Such electronic image was required to be synchronized with clearing house master table (CHM). Neither DW-1 nor DW-2 have been cross-examined by the plaintiff on the aspect of any non-compliance of the guidelines as prescribed by the RBI. DW-2 in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that there was no discrepancy in the MICR Band of the cheque and accordingly no IQA Failure report had not been generated.
63. In the cross-examination, DW-2 has clearly stated that IQA pass report was there in the present matter and the defendant bank scaned the instrument in the capture system which give IQA fail/pass report.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 27 /33 Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be concluded that since defendant no. 1 to 3 had duly exercised the standard of care in as much as examining the cheque in question with naked eyes and also through ultraviolate light, checking the water mark of the instrument, scanning the cheque in question through CTS scanner and only thereafter presenting the same to the paying bank (plaintiff) with the copy of the backside of the instrument who thus cannot be said to be lacking in care in so far as making over of the cheque in question for collection to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank to whom the cheque in question was sent for collection as per the evidence of PW-1 made the payment to defendant no. 1 and 2 bank after tallying the signatures of Defendant No 5 held in the bank record.
64. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cheque in question was forged having forged cheque performa, signatures, cheque no. It is further the case of the plaintiff that upon the cheque in question, the signatures of the drawer were forged and the entire fraud has been played due to the forgery in the drawer's signatures. However, no negligence can be said to have been committed by defendant no. 1 and 2 on the payment made by the plaintiff based upon forged cheque performa, signatures or the cheque number which cheque books have been issued by the plaintiff bank itself and it was the plaintiff bank who in terms of the admissions made by PW-1 was under a duty to check the signatures of the drawer and Defendant No 1 and 2 bank cannot be held liable on this account.
65. In the plaint, the plaintiff has further alleged that defendant no. 2 has failed to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) Norms and had failed to cooperate with the plaintiff bank who had made request to CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 28 /33 handover the original cheque to the plaintiff as presented to defendant no. 2 Bank.
66. As per DW-1, the account of defendant no. 4 was opened in the month of May-2012 based upon the driving license and cheque drawn at the Union Bank of India towards address proof. The cheque in question was presented by defendant no. 4 on 11.03.2013 i.e nearly about an year. In order to fasten the liability upon the defendant bank, the plaintiff bank is required to show that the negligence, if any, in opening the account of defendant no. 4 was intrinsically forming part of the depositing of the cheque in question therein as one scheme. The cheque in question has been deposited on 11.03.2013 in the bank account defendant no. 4 which was opened on May-2012, accordingly, it cannot be said that the opening of the account and depositing of the cheque forms part of one scheme since there is no proximity in the two dates i.e. date of opening of account and date of deposit of the cheque. Defendant bank who had taken the driving license alongwith cheque dated 25.05.2012 drawn on Union Bank of India, Ghaziabad, UP had no reason to doubt that the defendant whose address is mentioned on the driving license was not residing at the given address whose photograph on the account opening form matches with photograph on the driving license. Moreover, the cheque as drawn upon the Union Bank of India were duly encashed. The plaintiff has not placed on record any material to show as to which of the guidelines and KYC norms were not followed by defendant no. 2 by opening the account of defendant no. 4. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that defendant no. 2 had duly followed the KYC norms and guidelines by opening the account of defendant no. 4.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 29 /33
67. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 and 2 failed to cooperate and failed to handover the original cheque to the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that defendant no. 3 had duly returned the cheque in question to the plaintiff under the cover of their letter dated 02.05.2013. The defendant has placed on record Ex. DW1/E containing the original stamp of the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff in its plaint had denied the receiving of the original cheque from the defendant bank who had also vide Mark E i.e. Email dated 03.01.2014 had disputed the rubber stamp placed upon Ex. DW1/E. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved by placing on record any contemporaneous document to show that the stamp affixed on Ex. DW1/E is not of the plaintiff or that at the relevant period of time some other rubber stamp was being in use by the Plaintiff bank. No evidence whatsoever has been placed on record by the plaintiff showing that in fact the stamp affixed upon Ex. DW1/E does not belong to the plaintiff.
Thus, under the circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant no. 1 and 2 has failed to exercise the standard of care in its capacity as a collecting banker. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that there was any negligence on the part of defendant no. 2 in opening the bank account of defendant no. 4 by not following the KYC Norms. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that there was any proximate connection between opening of the bank account of defendant no. 4 and the presentation of the cheque being part of a single scheme. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the original cheque was not received by the plaintiff or that defendants no. 1 to 2 failed to cooperate with the plaintiff bank. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery alongwith interest, as prayed for against CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 30 /33 defendant no. 1 to 3. Accordingly, the present suit is hereby dismissed against defendants no 1 to 3.
68. However in the present suit the plaintiff has also sought a decree against defendant no 4 for an amount of Rs 3,34,000/- togetherwith cost and futher interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
69. In view of the findings returned above, the court is of the considered opinion that the cheque in question i.e. Ex PW 1/D1 was paid and cleared by the plaintiff bank under a mistake. Defendant no 4 who was served through publication on 02.10.2019 was proceeded ex- parte vide order dt 05.12.2019 since he failed to enter appearance. Since defendant no 4 has neither challanged the order vide which he was proceeded ex parte nor has filed his written statement, it is thus safe to presume that he was admitted the case of the plaintiff bank in its entirety which has gone unrebutted against Defendant no 4. At this stage, it is also relevant to reproduce Section 72 of the Indian Contact Act which reads as follows:
" Liabality of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coersion. A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it."
70. In view of the above, the evidence of PW-1 and the documents placed on record by the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that that defendant no. 4 has implicitly admitted the case of the plaintiff and its liability under the provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Defandant no 4 is thus liable to make good to the plaintiff bank the amount lost by it in the whole transaction.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 31 /33
71. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendant no. 4 is bound to return the said amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the plaintiff bank in view of the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
72. However, I am of the considered view that interest at 18% per annum is on the higher side. I am of the considered view that plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable rate of interest as per provisions contained in section 34 CPC.
73. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is reproduced here for ready reference:
(1) Where, and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum to adjudicated, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudicated on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit (with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6 percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum), from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit.
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudicated had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6 percent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or, where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to a commercial transaction.
74. Since the plaintiff in the present case is a nationalized bank, I am of the considered view that ends of justice will be met if the interest at 9% per annum is awarded to the plaintiff.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 32 /33
75. Accordingly, it is ordered that plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- w.e.f. 12.03.2013 as per the credit entry in the statement of account of defendant no 4 (Mark A) till the realization of the amount by the plaintiff bank from defendant no. 4. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 4.
76. ISSUE No 2 Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts? OPD
77. As per the written statement of defendant no 1 -3 the suit has been filed by the plaintiff with uncleaned hands. However the defendant no 1-3 have failed to specify as to what facts have been supressed by the plaintiff bank and neither any evidence has been made to that effect. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 to 4.
RELIEF:
78. In view of the findings given on issue no 1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed against defendants no 1 & 3 and is decreed only against defendant no 4. The plaintiff bank will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 12.03.2013 in the statement of account of defendant no 4 (Mark A) till the realization.
79. Costs of the suit is also awarded. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
80. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN SOOD
Announced in the open court (Sachin
SOOD
Sood)
Date: 2025.09.25
18:40:09 +0530
on 25.09.2025 DJ-01 (Central)
THC, Delhi.
CS No 13401/16 Punjab National Bank Vs HDFC Bank Ltd Page No 33 /33