Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Bank Of Mysore on 16 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Apoorv Sarvaria, DJS
C.S. No: 10/13
Unique Case ID No.02403C0018952013
Pawan Kumar
... Plaintiff
Versus
State Bank of Mysore
...Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 14 OF CPC
1.By this order, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC filed by the plaintiff praying for ordering the defendant bank to release the copy of the requested documents to the plaintiff as annexed alongwith the application shall be disposed of. As the application is calling for production of documents by the defendant bank, the same is treated as one filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC. By filing this application, the plaintiff wishes to call 43 documents which are as under:
1. Certified copies of list of transaction alongwith posting ID, Passing ID, Date, Amount and parties name in CBS System since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
2. Certified copies of VVR (Voucher Verification Report ) and GL Day book alongwith posting ID, passing ID since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
3. Certified copies of TFR report of every day's transaction including all type of inland and foreign alongwith posting ID, passing ID since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
4. Certified copies of Loginin history in EXIM, CBS, SFMS & Murcurry Fx since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
5. Certified copies of attendance register since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 1 of 76. Certified copies of BMC (Branch Managers Certificate) since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010 since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
7. Certified copies of exceptional report of every day's transaction since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
8. Certified copies of MIS (Management Information System) report of every day's transaction since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
9. Certified copies of branch visit register since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
10. Certified copies of Branch Inspection Register since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
11. Certified copies of circular regarding role and responsibilities of controller's and head officials of the bank.
12. Certified copies of branch documents register since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
13. Certified copies of office order book since 01.01.2009 to 31.07.2010.
14. How many new loan proposals were processed, sanctioned, rejected and closed after sanction of IFB branch during January 2009 to July 2010? Please furnish the certified copies of the same mentioning the name of account, line of activity, purpose, limit, Director's or proprietor's name and conduct of the account.
15. Please provide the last 90 days CCTV recording of events of the branch before the matter reported to.
16. Certified copies of self audit report of the branch since January 2009 to July 2010.
17. Certified copies of IS (Information System) Audit report since January 2009 to July 2010
18. Certified copies of circular regarding role and responsibilities from Assistant Manager to Assistant General Manager pertain to this type of transaction.
19. Certified copies of circular regarding check list for this type of transaction.
20. Certified copies of full set of credit audit report conducted during January 2009 to July 2009.
CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 2 of 721. Certified copies of full set of risk focused internal audit (RFIA) conducted during January, 2009 to July 2010.
22. Certified copies of all concurrent audit report since January 2009 to July 2010.
23. Certified copies of RBI audit report during January 2009 to July 2010.
24. Certified copies of branch manager's movement register during January 2009 to July 2010
25. Certified copies of branch manager's vehicle log book register during January 2009 to July 2010
26. Certified copies of pre sanction & post sanction proposal of 1. Texcomash International Ltd. 2. Rishab Impex & 3. Nikita Exim.
27. Certified copies of pre sanction inspection report & post sanction inspection report of these three accounts.
28. Certified copies of sanction communication regarding fresh sanction & enhancement if any, of these three accounts.
29. Certified copies of control return submitted by the branch to the RO (Regional Office) of these three accounts.
30. Certified copies of Head office noting regarding ZOCC sanction of non LC limit & packing credit limit of Texcomash International Lt.d & Compliance report, if any.
31. Certified copies of head office noting regarding ZOCC sanction of non LC Limit & Packing Credit Limit ot Texcomash International Ltd. & compliance report, if any.
32. Certified copies of circular on scheme of delegation of financial power
33. Certified copies of CIBIL report of these three accountsDirectors, Guarantors and proprietors.
34. Certified copies of original SWIFT message copies or screen shot print of the same since January 2009 to July 2010
35. Certified copies of RFIA auditor's and credit audit auditor's inspection report of these CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 3 of 7 three units.
36. Certified copies of the entire statutory audit report (quarterly audit) since January 2009 to July 2010
37. Certified copies of charge taking report of new AGM Sh. B S Diwakar.
38. Certified copies of full set of investigation report of AGM audit mobile.
39. Certified copies of full set of investigation report of Sh. M K Raghunath Rao.
40. Certified copies of all irregularity report submitted by the branch since January 2009 to July 2010
41. Certified copies of DOSCIS report since January 2009 to July 2010
42. Certified copies of letter sent to CSD to enhance the capability level for passing of transaction in Exim package beyond limit, over ride power.
43. Certified copies of all irregularities report since 01.01.2009 to 30.07.2010.
2. It is stated in the application that these documents are required for proper adjudication of the dispute in the present case. The defendant has not filed written reply to the application but the Ld. Advocate for the defendant had orally objected to the application and stated that these documents are not relevant to the dispute arising in the present suit and all the documents sought for are dealing with materials that are beyond the scope of the suit. During arguments, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that a table containing the reasons for production of documents specified in the application. Heard and perused.
3. For documents at Serial No.1 to 4, the plaintiff has sought the production of these documents stating that he wants to establish his position stronger and recollect his memory.
4. For document at Serial No.5, it is stated that the plaintiff wishes to know his presence in the branch for the said period.
5. For document at Serial No.6, it is stated that it is required to know monthly audit report CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 4 of 7 of branch manager. For document at Serial No.7, it is required for knowing irregularities generated in the branch for the said period. For document at Serial No.8, it is required for ascertaining what needs to be seen by the management of the branch. For documents at Serial No.9 and 10, it is sought for knowing the officials who visited to the branch and their comments. For document at Serial No.11, it is required to ascertain the roles of the officials who are the witness. For document at Serial No.12, it is required for ascertaining whether the concerned circular are entered in the branch documents register. For document at Serial No.13, it is sought for ascertaining the role assigned to the plaintiff by the branch head. For document at Serial No.14, it is required to know the functioning of branch head. For document at Serial No.15, the plaintiff states that he wants to make his position stronger by showing the proximity towards the senior officials of the branch. For document at Serial No.16 and 17 it is stated that they are health check up report of the branch. For document at Serial No.18, the plaintiff requires the document to ascertain the roles of the officials who are the witness. For document at Serial No.19, the plaintiff states that he requires the document to know the instruments available in the branch for checking. For documents at Serial No.20, 21, 22 and 23, it is stated that these documents are health checkup reports of the branch. For document at Serial No. 24, it is stated that the document is required for knowing the officials who visited these units and their comments. For documents at Serial No.25 to 28, it is stated that these documents are required to know the terms and reference. For document at Serial No.29, it is stated that it is required to know whether the controller was brought to the notice of sanction, enhancement and over drawing. For documents at Serial No.30 and 31, it is stated that the plaintiff requires these documents to know the observations of controller and their compliance by the branch. For document at Serial No. 32, the plaintiff states that he requires the same to know his financial power. For document at Serial No.33, he states that he requires the document to know the background of CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 5 of 7 customers. For document at Serial No.34, the plaintiff states that he requires the document to know the fact under whose period and ID, messages were generated. For documents at Serial No.35 and 36, the plaintiff states that he requires the documents as they are health check up report of the branch. For document at Serial No.37, it is stated that this is required to know the observations of new AGM and his comments and compliance thereof. For documents at Serial No.38 and 39, it is stated that these are the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff has been suspended, charge sheeted and suspension continued. For document at Serial No.40, the plaintiff states that he requires the document to know the status of irregularity report and compliance thereof. For document at Serial No.41, the plaintiff states that he wants to establish his position stronger in the case. For document at Serial No.42, the plaintiff states that this document is required to establish that he was not having power to pass the transaction. For document at Serial No.43, the plaintiff states that he requires the same to ascertain and to know the status of irregularity report and compliance thereof.
6. The reasons as given in the table appear to be relevant to establish the defence of the plaintiff in the domestic inquiry/departmental inquiry conducted by the defendant bank or for proving his defence in the criminal cases pending against him. The scope of the present suit concerns only with the nature of domestic inquiry continued by the defendant bank and whether it is feasible to continue the domestic inquiry till the pendency of criminal cases against the plaintiff and the reasons given by the plaintiff/applicant in the table filed by him do not in any way concern with the proceedings of the domestic inquiry and only relate to the merits of the domestic inquiry or the criminal cases pending against him. Therefore, it appears that by filing this application, the plaintiff wishes to procure evidence which can be used in the other proceedings i.e. the domestic inquiry or criminal cases pending against him. However, the provision under Order 7 Rule 14 or under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC are not meant CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 6 of 7 for assisting the plaintiff in procuring evidence in some other case or proceeding pending against him. The plaintiff has not shown any ground why and how these 43 documents are required for proving his case for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant bank which is the only matter in question in the present suit. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the present application and the present application is dismissed. Order be uploaded to www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
Announced in the Open Court (Apoorv Sarvaria) on 16th August, 2013 Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District/New Delhi CS No.10/13 Pawan Kumar v. State Bank of Mysore Page 7 of 7