Delhi District Court
Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain vs The Branch Manager Of Ing Vysya Bank Ltd on 10 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE10
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 113/11 (12)
Unique ID No. 02401C0376222011
MEMO OF PARTIES
Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Jain
R/o B210, Gali No. 1, ABlock,
Sadatpur Extension, Delhi 110094
...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd.
Chandni Chowk Branch,
1893, Opp. Dariba Kalan,
Chandni Chowk, New Delhi110006
2. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.
Head Office No. 4, Tejswini,
7th Main, Banglore University,
Jnana Jyothi Nagar, Bengaluru560002
..........Defendants
Date of institution of the Suit: 18.08.2011
Date on which judgment was reserved: 20.09.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 10.10.2014
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION, DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFITS
Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 1/19
JUDGMENT:
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for mandatory injunction, damages and mesne profits against the defendants.
2. The plaintiff's case is that he has a current account no. 523011053265 with the defendant no. 1 branch manager of the defendant no. 2 at the Chandani Chowk Branch of the defendants since long and has been making transactions from time to time. On 02.06.2011, the plaintiff checked his account details and as per the balance summary there was an amount of Rs. 1,04,924/ in the account of the plaintiff. On 03.06.2011 the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing no. 693381 for Rs. 1 Lakh to M/s. A.S. World Enterprises under his own signatures on behalf of his firm i.e. M/s. Jain Electronics and Furniture being the proprietor of the same. The plaintiff was shocked to know that the said cheque was dishonoured by the defendant no. 1 branch vide returning memo dated 07.06.2011 with the alleged reason 'insufficient funds'. The plaintiff immediately contacted the defendant no. 1 telephonically but no suitable explanation was provided to him and the defendant no. 1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or another.
3. The plaintiff avers further that till 22.06.2011 there was an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh in his account. On 20.06.2011 the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing no. 693383 for a sum of Rs. 92,765/ in favor of M/s. Anil Electronics but again Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 2/19 plaintiff was shocked to know that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds'. This fact was conveyed to the plaintiff by the aforesaid firm to whom the cheque was issued. The plaintiff pleads that in spite of sufficient amount being in the account of the plaintiff the defendant bank had dishonoured the cheque which showed that the defendants were misappropriating the funds and not informing the plaintiff the true facts which was causing great imputation to the reputation of the plaintiff in the market and the society. The defendants had caused great mental pain and agony to the plaintiff due to their aforesaid acts.
4. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 30.06.2011 through registered AD and speed post through his counsel seeking payment of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Ten Lakhs only) towards compensation for mental pain, agony and loss of reputation and requiring the defendants to clear the cheques within 7 days but the defendants started giving threats to the plaintiff telephonically. The defendant no. 1 was served the notice but the defendant no. 2 intentionally refused to receive the notice therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit.
5. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants were extending threats to the plaintiff telephonically as well as by sending some antisocial elements to the house of the plaintiff and were adamant not to release the amount lying in the account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further avers that the plaintiff had Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 3/19 initially filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.08.2011 with the observation that the plaintiff herein was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act but was free to initiate appropriate civil proceedings against the defendant.
6. Through the present suit the plaintiff seeks a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants directing the defendants to release the due amount lying in the current account of the plaintiff after closing the same, damages for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ and a decree of mesne profits directing defendants to pay the interest upon the amount of Rs. 1 lakhs as per the banking norms along with costs.
7. The defendants filed a common written statement. Preliminary objections were taken. It was averred that the plaintiff had concealed material facts. The defendants alleged that on 31.05.2011 the plaintiff, Sh. Nitesh Kumar and Sh. Ajay Sharma, placed two bearer cheques bearing no. 670752 for Rs. 7,40,000/ dated 31.05.2011 from the account no. 523011052886 and no. 670727 for Rs. 50,000/ also dated 31.05.2011 from account no. 523011052878 for payment totalling to Rs. 7,90,000/. However inadvertently the plaintiff received 1780 currency notes of 500 denomination totalling Rs. 8,90,000/ i.e. excess of Rs. 1,00,000/. When the cashier was closing the Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 4/19 books in the evening there was a difference of Rs. 1,00,000/. Thereafter the cashier checked the entire books, verified the CCTV Camera footage and also checked the negotiable instruments physically against which the payments were made on that day and it was found that the plaintiff and his associates had received an excess payment of Rs. 1,00,000/. Immediately the said facts was brought to the notice of the plaintiff and his associates namely Sh. Nitesh Kumar and Sh. Ajay Sharma by the branch head of the defendant bank and the plaintiff and his associates assured to return the amount immediately. At the same time, the defendant had asked the plaintiff and his associates if any one of their accounts was needed to be marked lien as an assurance and the plaintiff had voluntarily stated that his account be marked lien as an assurance that excess amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ would be returned to the defendant bank. The plaintiff was informed that his account had been marked as lien.
8. The defendants alleged that on 10.06.2011 they requested the plaintiff, Sh. Ajay Sharma and Sh. Nitesh Kumar for refund of the amount but plaintiff and his associates requested the defendant to show the CCTV footage and only thereafter they would refund the amount. The defendants agreed to the request and immediately arranged to show the CCTV footage to the plaintiff and his associates. Sensing the malafide intention of the plaintiff, the Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 5/19 defendants debited the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh from the account of the plaintiff after issuing demand notice. The amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was debited from the plaintiff's account after the issuance of the demand notice as the plaintiff and his associates were not refunding the excess amount. The defendant had also filed a police complaint against misappropriation of amount by the plaintiff and his associates. Defendants sent reply to the legal notice of the plaintiff dated 17.08.2011 and also sent a letter dated 09.09.2011 prior to debiting the amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff and Sh. Ajay Sharma.
9. In the para wise reply on merits the defendants contended that the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the defendant bank had marked lien on his account. The very fact of obtaining balance summary was to create evidence as the defendants had intimated that in the account there was a balance on which lien had been marked which was done on 31.05.2011 by the branch head i.e. on the same day when the plaintiff and his associates obtained excess amount from the defendant. The defendants denied that the plaintiff and his associates contacted the defendants and submitted that during this period it was the defendant through its officers who was in constant touch with the plaintiff and his associates. The allegations contained in the plaint were denied and it was submitted that it was the plaintiff and his associates who had committed the offence of misappropriation of funds. It Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 6/19 was prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.
10. Rejoinder (replication) was filed by the plaintiff. In reply to the preliminary objections it was denied that on 31.05.2011 the plaintiff, Sh. Nitesh Kumar and Sh. Ajay Sharma placed the two bearer cheques in question for payment totaling Rs. 7,90,000/ and it was submitted that only Sh. Nitesh Kumar visited the bank. It was submitted that Sh. Nitesh Kumar only received a sum of Rs. 7,90,000/ against the aforesaid cheques. It was submitted that there was no lien on the plaintiff's account which was the subject matter of the dispute. It was further submitted that the alleged CCTV footage was tainted and manipulated and it was submitted that nowhere in the CCTV footage was it evident that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been paid in excess. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh had been debited from the plaintiff's account illegally and that the lien if any was on the respective account from which the alleged cheques were encashed. Rest of the contentions of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated.
11. Initially the plaint was rejected U/O. 7 Rule 11 CPC being under valued, vide the order of the court dated 28.11.2011. However vide order dated 16.05.2012 the plaintiff's application U/S. 148, 149 and 151 CPC seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.11.2011 was allowed observing inter alia that the court fees had been filed by the plaintiff. The suit was thus restored to Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 7/19 its original position.
12. On 04.08.2012 the following issues was framed in the present case:
1. Whether plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts? If so, effect? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer clause a of the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages as prayed for in prayer clauseb of the plaint? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed in prayer clause c? If yes at what rate and for what period? OPP
5. Relief.
13. The plaintiff in evidence examined himself as PW1, Sh. Nitish Kumar Sharma as PW2 and Sh. Ajay Sharma, as PW3. The defendants on the other hand examined Sh. Ajay Yadav as DW1 and vide order dated 11.08.2014 DE was closed.
14. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments. Despite various opportunities the plaintiff did not address the arguments. Ld. Counsel for the defendants addressed the arguments. In any case the matter is being decided on merits.
15. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 8/19 defendants and have perused the record.
16. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 (1) Whether plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts? If so, effect? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer clause a of the plaint? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed in prayer clausec? If yes at what rate and for what period? OPP
17. These issues are taken up together for sake of convenience. As per the defendants, the material facts which the plaintiff is stated to be guilty of suppressing pertain to the incident dated 31.05.2011 elaborated by them in the written statement whereby the plaintiff, Mr. Ajay Sharma and Sh. Nitesh Kumar allegedly inadvertently received Rs. 8,90,000/ instead of Rs. 7,90,000/ towards the 2 bearer cheques one for Rs. 7,40,000/ and another for Rs. 50,000/. The defendants claim that this was informed to the plaintiff and the other 2 persons above named who also saw the CCTV footage thereof, that plaintiff himself got his account marked lien as assurance that excess amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ would be returned to the defendant bank and further that the plaintiff was informed that his account was marked lien. While the plaintiff has not mentioned about this incident in his plaint however, he has in the replication stated that only Sh. Nitish Kumar visited the bank and that Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 9/19 said Nitish Kumar had only received a sum of Rs. 7,90,000/ against the 2 cheques in question. The plaintiff denied giving assurance for his account to be marked lien or that he was informed that the account was in fact marked as lien. The plaintiff also denied being shown the CCTV footage and claimed it to be fabricated. Now, as correctly pointed out by counsel for defendants, that the plaintiff/ PW1 contradicted himself in crossexamination when he deposed that that excess amount had not been withdrawn by Sh. Nitish Kumar Sharma in respect of the two cheques in question because he was present personally at the bank at the time but in the replication he had stated that only Sh. Nitesh Kumar Sharma had gone for collecting the amount. Further, PW1 and PW3 in crossexamination also admitted seeing the CCTV footage though in their evidence in chief they had deposed that they had not seen the CCTV footage.
18. Ld. Counsel for defendants argued that the plaintiff/ PW1 had deposed initially in crossexamination that neither had he issued these cheques nor were they in his name but at a later stage of crossexamination had admitted that some of the amount of the said two cheques was in lieu of goods supplied by his firm. Additionally PW3 had deposed in the crossexamination that the payment of Rs.7,90,000/ was required by PW3 to make payment to the plaintiff since he had purchased goods/ materials from the plaintiff.
19. Strictly speaking, if Mark A colly i.e. the photocopies of the cheques in Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 10/19 question are looked at (since the marked documents can always be read against a party who files them in this case it can be read against the defendants who have filed them on record); PW1 was technically right when he testified that the cheques Mark A (colly) were not issued by him as one is issued by the proprietor of Shri Krishna Electronics and one by proprietor of Sharma Enterprises and nor are they issued in his name, being issued in the name of PW2 Sh. Nitish Kumar Sharma.
20. Additionally the fact of the matter is that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses as mentioned above could only become relevant and be considered to be material to the present case if the defendant had proved that excess payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ had been paid to the plaintiff and his associates and the plaintiff's account had been marked as lien towards security for refund of the amount. The plaintiff/ PW1 and his witnesses PW2 and PW3 have at least consistently deposed that they were not handed over any excess payment. The positive assertions that excess payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was made to the plaintiff and his associates and the plaintiff's account was marked lien were to be proved by the defendants.
21. The defendants in evidence only examined DW1 Sh. Ajay Yadav as a witness. This witness in crossexamination showed his ignorance to the facts since he deposed that he could not admit or deny the suggestion that the Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 11/19 defendant had not made an extra payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the plaintiff, Sh. Nitish Kumar or Sh. Ajay Sharma as he did not know. DW1 also deposed that it could be said that he did not have any personal knowledge about the facts pertaining to the present case, volunteering that he was not present at the time the transaction in dispute took place. No official who could depose about the facts was called in evidence by the defendants.
22. Ex. PW1/1 is the closing balance shown in the account of the plaintiff's firm as on 02.06.2011 i.e. Rs. 1,04,924/ while Ex. PW1/2 is the closing balance of Rs. 1,00,000/ as on 22.06.2011. The legal notice dated 30.06.2011 was proved by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/3 and postal receipts were proved as Ex. PW1/4 colly. The defendants have for reasons best known to them only placed on record photocopies of documents which were merely marked in evidence and in absence of the originals and no valid having been cause shown for nonproduction of the originals the marked documents cannot be read in evidence.
23. DW1 deposed in crossexamination that the defendant bank maintained a cash entry register pertaining to cash received and paid to customers, admitting candidly that the defendant had not placed on record the cash entry register to show that the sum of Rs. 8,90,000/ was paid against the cheques Mark A (colly). For nonproduction of such a vital record, adverse inference Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 12/19 must be drawn against the defendant bank that if the cash entry register had been adduced in evidence, it would have gone against the defendant bank.
24. The Counsel for the defendants sought to argue that the denomination of the notes handed over was mentioned at the back of the cheques however, the defendants never sought to produce the original cheques. The photocopies thereof, on which reliance is sought to be placed by the defendants being marked documents not proved as per law cannot be relied upon, especially since as per the admission of DW1 himself the original cheques were still in possession of the defendant bank. Even as regards Ex. DW1/1 compact disk adduced in evidence by the defendants, an objection as to its mode of proof was taken by the plaintiff at the time it was tendered in evidence. In crossexamination, DW1 admitted that he had not seen the CCTV footage as captured in Ex. DW1/1 and deposed that Ex. DW1/1 had been prepared from the memory card of the security cameras installed in the defendant bank. DW1 also deposed that the original memory card pertaining to the footage as captured in the CD Ex. DW1/1 had not been preserved by the defendant. The defendants have not even filed a certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act certifying the secondary evidence of the CD prepared from the memory disk. In fact, even otherwise the CD Ex. DW1/1 cannot be proved through a witness who admits that he has not even seen the contents Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 13/19 of the CD much less prepared the CD.
25. Further, the irrelevance of the contents of the CD to the present case is brought out through the crossexamination of DW1 himself as DW1 admitted that even from the footage contained in Ex. DW1/1 it could not be ascertained as to whether a payment of 1780 currency notes of Rs. 500/ denomination had been paid for encashment of the cheques in question.
26. Coming further to the issue of lien also, the defendant bank has failed to prove through documentary evidence that the plaintiff was given any prior intimation that his account was marked lien. Mark E purported to be an intimation/ demand letter by the defendant bank dated 09.09.2010 (apparently a typographical error and presumably it was meant 09.09.2011) however, no reliance can be placed on this photocopy document. DW1 deposed that one original copy of Mark E would have been sent to the plaintiff while the other was in the bank's record maintained by a company appointed by the bank for safe keeping of original documents. The defendants neither chose to confront the plaintiff/ PW1 with this document nor produced the original, which as per DW1's testimony could clearly have been produced by the defendant bank. Mark E is thus inadmissible in evidence. In fact, DW1 testified in cross examination that no notice of demand of any alleged payment was ever raised on the plaintiff, Sh. Ajay Sharma or Sh. Nitish Kumar, though he volunteered Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 14/19 that verbal requests were made by Sh. Vinay Aggarwal. DW1 also relied on an affidavit of Sh. Vinay Aggarwal Mark G which obviously was required to be proved by Sh. Vinay Aggarwal himself however, Sh. Vinay Aggarwal was not produced in evidence by the defendants despite the sufficient opportunities granted to the defendants for leading evidence therefore, defendants have failed to establish that any written or verbal demands/ requests were made to the plaintiff, Sh. Nitish Kumar and Sh. Ajay Sharma.
27. Now, perusal of Ex. PW1/2 shows that it does not reflect any lien, which fact was admitted by DW1, who voluntarily deposed however that the lien would be reflected in the system of the defendant bank. Again, when further prodded in crossexamination in this regard, DW1 deposed that the defendant had not placed on record any document to show the lien qua the account of the plaintiff as maintained by the defendant bank. The defendant bank has also not chosen to place on record it's guidelines regarding the procedure of marking a particular account lien, but in any case it is highly improbable that the defendant bank would without prior written intimation and without maintaining any record mark a lien on a customer's bank account. If there was any such documentary evidence then no explanation is forthcoming from the defendants regarding nonproduction of the same. The defendants have thus failed to prove their defence that the plaintiff and his associates Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 15/19 were handed over excess payment or that plaintiff's account was marked as lien. Having failed to prove this defence, they have axiomatically failed to prove that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses are material to the present case. The defendants have failed entirely to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts.
28. The fact that the plaintiff has the bank account in question in the name of his proprietorship concern is admitted by the defendants, the fact that there was a balance of exactly Rs. 1,00,000/ in this account of the plaintiff on 22.06.2011 has been proved vide Ex. PW1/2 account statement. The defendants have also not denied that the two cheques issued by the plaintiff were dishonoured for the reason of insufficiency of funds despite there being amount sufficient for honouring the cheques. The defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff and his associates had obtained excess amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ and that the defendants had a right of lien over the plaintiff's account. In fact, the defendants have failed to establish that a lien had been created over the plaintiff's or that the alleged lien was created lawfully. Even if the defendant bank claims that it has already debited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/, having failed to prove it's defence the bank is under the duty to restore the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the plaintiff.
29. Thus, the plaintiff on a preponderance of probabilities has established Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 16/19 his entitlement to the relief of his entitlement to the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed however, this relief is maintainable only against the defendant No. 2 since defendant No. 1 is merely the Branch Manager of the particular branch of the defendant No. 2 bank against whom as such there is no allegation and he is not liable personally for the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction only against defendant no. 2 of release of the amount lying in the current account of the plaintiff, i.e. admittedly the amount of Rs. One Lakh as on 22.06.2011 and closing the same. Prayer Clause (c) though worded as relief for mesne profits however what is actually sought is interest and the plaintiff put a suggestion to DW1 that plaintiff was entitled to interest on this amount @ 24% per annum. In my opinion, the rate of 24% p.a. is exorbitant. However, ends of justice would be met if simple interest @ 8% p.a. is awarded to the plaintiff on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ to be handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to interest at this rate from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. The suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 1.
Issue No.1 decided against the defendants. Issue No.2 accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.2. Issue No. 4 decided as above.
Issue No. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages as prayed for in prayer clauseb of the plaint? OPP Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 17/19
30. The onus to prove the entitlement for damages to the fine of Rs. 50,000/ was entirely on the plaintiff. The relief of damages is penal in nature and the plaintiff claims this relief towards mental agony, pain and trauma. The basis of claiming Rs. 50,000/ towards damages is not disclosed anywhere in the plaintiff's pleadings or evidence and the figure seems to be arrived at by the plaintiff arbitrarily. This is patent from the fact that in the legal notice dated 30.06.2011, he claimed Rs. 10,00,000/ as compensation towards mental pain, agony and loss of reputation but for the purpose of filing the suit, the amount was drastically reduced to Rs. 50,000/ without any explanation for the same. The plaintiff having failed to explain the basis for claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ is not entitled to the relief of damages at the arbitrary rate of Rs. 50,000/. In any case, the plaintiff would be suitably compensated by awarding interest on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ which has been granted in his favour by way of the mandatory injunction against the defendant No. 2 which has in fact been granted to the plaintiff as above @ 8% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. This issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 Relief.
31. Consequent, to the aforesaid issuewise discussion, the plaintiff's suit stands partly decreed for the relief of mandatory injunction against the Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 18/19 defendant no. 2, directing the defendant No. 2 to release the amount lying in the current account of the plaintiff (i.e. the sum of Rupees One Lakh only) after closing the same and simple interest on the amount of Rupees One Lakh @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. The relief of damages is declined. The suit against defendant No. 1 stands dismissed being not maintainable qua defendant No.1. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 10.10.2014 Civil Judge - 10 (Central)
10.10.2014
Suit No. 113/11 (12) Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. The Branch Manager of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. 19/19