Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs M/S Bhushan Silk House on 21 March, 2022
KABC010168522016
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for
Judgmen
t in PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI G,
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 21 st day of March 2022
PLAINTIFF: CANARA BANK,
Avenue Road Branch,
No.105-110, Avenue Plaza,
Avenue road,
Bangalore-560 002.
By its Senior Manager,
G. Keshava,
S/o H.B.Gopal,
Aged 59 years.
[By Sri Mahabaleshwara Rao K.N. Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s Bhushan Silk House,
No.40, Bhushan Complex,
Basava Lane Cross,
Avenue Road,
Bangalore-560 002.
By its Proprietorix
Ms. D.S.Sridevi,
Father's name not known to
plaintiff, Major,
No. 40, Bhushan Complex,
Basava Lane Cross,
2
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
Avenue Road,
Bangaore-560 002.
2. Ms. D.S. Sridevi,
Father's name not known to
plaintiff, Major,
No.40, Bhushan Complex,
Basava Lane Cross,
Avenue Road,
Bangalore-560 002.
[By Sri R.S.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 22/7/2016
suit
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 10/8/2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 21/03/2022
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
5 7 30
(Prashanthi. G)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants
for the relief of recovery of money for a sum of
Rs.2,59,853-91 (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Nine
Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three And Paise Ninety
one only) payable with current and future interest at
3
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
the rate of 18.35% per annum charged on a monthly
rest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
decree and from the date of decree till realization or
payment of the amount; and award cost of the suit
payable by the defendants and also a sum of Rs.500/-
being the typing charges and other expenses in
preparing the pleadings as per Order 20A of CPC.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as
follows:
The plaintiff is the bank. Defendant no.2 by
name D.S.Sridevi is carrying on the cloth business
under the style as M/s Bhushan Silk House
(defendant no.1). It is having the current account no.
040226127650 at Canara Bank, Avenue road Branch,
Bengaluru. The first defendant appears to have got an
account in its name at Textile Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
J.M.Road, Bengaluru and it has issued the cheque
no.135843 dated 24/7/2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the
name of Bhushan Silk House. The said cheque issued
in the name of Bhushan Silk House was received by
the clearing section of the plaintiff -bank through
4
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
MICR clearing. After receiving the image of the
cheque, it debited the cheque amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the cheque dated
27/5/2013 bearing no. 135843 from the current
account of the Euro clothing company bearing
no.0402201051984. The said cheque was cleared by
debiting the said amount due to the said fact that the
said cheque number was also fed to the account of the
one Euro clothing company to which was having the
current account number at the plaintiff -bank. The
said amount debited on 27/5/2013 is credited to the
account of Bhushan Silk house who is the first
defendant in the above case.
The first defendant has issued cheque bearing
no. 135775 dated 25/2/2013 in the name of South
India Finvest Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.1,00,000/-. The clearing
section of the Canara Bank received the image of the
said cheque through Vijaya Bank for clearance
through MICR clearing section. The said cheque was
also debited from the account of the Euro clothing
5
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
company bearing no.040201051984 maintained with
the plaintiff -bank on 27/12/2013.
The plaintiff-bank coming to know about the
wrong debiting of the account from the current
account of the Euro clothing company informed the
defendants to credit the said amount to its account.
However, the defendants have not honoured the said
request and not remitted the cheque amount. On
13/2/2015, the plaintiff -bank wrote a letter to the
defendants to pay the cheque amount by providing
necessary documents to them. Since the amount was
not paid and the Euro clothing company which was
demanding the amount, the plaintiff bank has debited
the cheque amount from the amount of the account of
the defendants and credited to the account of the
Euro clothing company. Thereafter, another letter was
written on 13/6/2015 requesting the first defendant
to pay the said amount which was sent by RPAD on
13/6/2015 which was received by the first defendant
on 15/6/2015. The copy of the letter, the statements
of the accounts showing the debit of the amount on
6
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
15/7/2013 and 27/12/2013 from the current
account of Euro clothing company and subsequent
reversal of wrong debit from Bhushan Silk House and
credit of the same in favour of Euro Clothing company
clearly shows that the above said aspects of the
plaintiff -bank are correct.
The defendants have issued the cheque dated
24/7/2013 and 25/12/2013 bearing no. 135843 and
135775 to be debited from the current account of
Bhushan Silk House bearing No.040226127650.
However, due to mistake the cheque amount was
debited from the account of the Euro clothing
company as the system has debited the said cheque
amount and credited to the respective parties. When
the plaintiff -bank came to know the wrong debit, it
has reversed the entry and debited the same from the
first defendant company account and credited that
account to the account of the Euro clothign company.
As a result, the current account of the Bhushan Silk
House is showing the debit balance and inspite of the
repeated request, they have not cleared the amount.
7
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
Since the cheque amount ought to have been debited
from the current account of the first defendant, the
first defendant is liable to pay the said cheque amount
with interest to the plaintiff's bank. Therefore, the
present suit has been filed.
The total due as on the date of the filing of the
suit is Rs.2,59,853.91. The statement of account
maintianed by the bank in the regular course of
business clearly shows this aspect. The defendants
have to pay the interest at the rate of 18.35% per
annum at the current and future compound interest.
The cause of action for the suit arose on
24/7/2013 and 27/12/2013 when the cheque
amount was wrongly debited from the account of Euro
clothing company and subsequently when said wrong
debit was reversed on 19/2/2015 and credited to the
account of Euro Clothing company. The suit is within
the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to
decree the suit in the ends of the justice.
8
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
3. The summons is duly served to the
defendants. The defendant though appeared through
his counsel did not file written statement.
4. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, the
Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW.1
and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and closed its side of
evidence.
5. Heard the arguments for plaintiff and
perused entire records of the case.
6. On perusal of the pleadings, documents
and also evidence of PW.1, following points arise for
my consideration:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a
sum of Rs.2,59,853-91 together with
interest thereon at the rate of 18.35% per
annum from the defendants jointly and
severally from date of suit till the date of
the realization of the entire amount?
(2) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1) ............ Partly in the affirmative;
Point No. 2) ............ As per final order for
the following:
9
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
8. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the plaintiff
that, the first defendant is having the current account
in the plaintiff bank and it has issued the cheque
dated 24/7/2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- in its name i.e.,
Bhushan Silk House. By the mistake, that cheque
which was received by the bank when cleared,
debited the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from
current account which belongs to Euro clothing
company. In order to substantiate that aspect, the
plaintiff has produced the statement of accounts of
the current account of Euro clothing company which
is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1(a) clearly shows that, on
25/7/2013, the cheque no.155843 has been cleared
by debiting the said amount from the account of Euro
clothing company. Once again, the first defendant
issued the cheque in favour of South India Finvest
Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.1,00,000/- wherein the said cheque
was also cleared from debiting the said amount from
the account of Euro Clothing company. Ex.P1(d)
10
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
which is the statement of the accounts belonging to
the Euro clothing company dated 27/12/2013 clearly
shows that, the cheque no. 135775 has been cleared
by debiting the amount from the current account of
Euro clothing company. The actual thing which has to
be happened is to the plaintiff-bank has to debit the
amount from the account of the defendant no.1 itself,
rather than it has debited the said amount from the
account of the Euro clothing company. Afterwards,
the said amount were credited to the account of Euro
clothing company from the account of the defendants
on 19/2/2015 itself. Ex.P1 (b) and Ex.P1(c) which
clearly shows that, on 19/2/2015, Rs.1,00,000/- each
amount has been credited in favour of Euro clothing
company. Ex.P2 is the statement of the accounts
pertaining to the defendant no.1 which is Bhushan
Silk House. Ex.P2 (a) and Ex.P2(b) clearly shows that
said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each has been
withdrawn from the account of the first defendant
and same has been credited to the account of Euro
clothing company. However, even after the sufficient
11
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
notices to the defendants, they have not paid the said
amount which was given to them as per the cheque
dated 24/7/2013 and 25/12/2013 in favour of the
bank. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 clearly shows that, the bank
has issued the notices and reminder in favour of the
defendant no.2 calling upon her to clear that amount.
Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 which is the
acknowledgement which clearly shows that, the
defendant has received the notice. Ex.P7 is the cheque
dated 25/12/2013 and Ex.P8 is also the cheque dated
24/7/2013. The same averments were stated in the
chief examination of PW.1.
9. It is pertinent to note here that, after the
service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared
through their counsel and filed the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. However, as per the order
dated 30/7/2020, this Court has dismissed that
application and the case was posted for evidence.
Even after the sufficient opportunities the defendants
have not filed the written statement nor contested the
12
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
suit of the plaintiff. An adverse inference can be
drawn against the defendants at this juncture. From
the depositions of the PW.1 and from the documents
produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff
is entitled to the amount to the tune of
Rs.2,59,853-91 from the defendants. However, on
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
court is of the opinion that the future interest claimed
to the tune of 18.35% per annum is exorbitant and it
is sufficient to impose interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till
realisation. Thereby, I answer Point No.1 partly in the
affirmative.
10. POINT NO.2: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed in part. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed
in part.
13
CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.2,59,853-91 together with interest
thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from
the defendants jointly and severally from
the date of suit till realization of the entire
decreetal amount.
Under the above circumstances, no order
as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 21 st day of March 2022.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Esha Shetty Ojha
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Statement of accounts of Euro clothing company ltd., 14 CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc Ex.P1(a) Statement showing the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25/7/2013 from the Euro Clothing Limited.
Ex.P1(b)
and Statements.
Ex.P1(c)
Ex.P1(d) Statement dated 27/12/2013.
Ex.P2 Statement of account of Bhushan
Silk House.
Ex.P2(a)
and Two statements dated 19/2/2015
Ex.P2(b)
Ex.P3 Reminder issued by the bank
dated 13/2/2015.
Ex.P4 Reminder issued by the bank
dated 12/6/2015.
Ex.P5 Postal receipt.
Ex.P6 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P7 The original cheque dated
25/12/2013 drawn on Canara Bank.
Ex.P8 The original cheque dated 24/7/2013 drawn on Canara Bank.
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
15 CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc ...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,59,853-91 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the defendants jointly and severally from the date of suit till realization of the entire decreetal amount. Under the above circumstances, no order as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1 CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc 7 1 CT0028_O.S._5327_2016_Judgment_.doc 8 fdfdf