Delhi High Court
Punjab National Bank vs S.P. Dhoot on 13 July, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.460/1998
% 13th July, 2012
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ...... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
S.P. DHOOT ...... Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a suit for recovery of ` 22,53,410/- filed by the plaintiff-bank in which interest @ 16.85% per annum is also claimed alongwith costs of the suit.
2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank came to know during the course of tallying the balances on 25.2.1995 a difference of ` 25,000/- in one of the saving fund ledgers of the plaintiff-bank and it became clear that the defendant was guilty of defrauding the bank. The defendant is stated to have admitted to the fraud and promised to repay the amount. Further frauds were subsequently discovered by the plaintiff-bank on 1.3.1995, 2.3.1995 and so on. The modus operandi of the CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 1 of 4 defendant was that he opened various fictitious accounts, transferred amounts from other accounts to these fictitious accounts and made withdrawal from the said accounts unauthorisedly under his signatures. The details of the fraudulent actions and accounts opened and operated are given in para 7 of the plaint. The total amount siphoned by the defendant from the plaintiff was ` 27,85,523. The defendant, however, deposited a sum of ` 18,12,800/- leaving behind a sum of ` 9,40,723/- recoverable from him. It is for this amount alongwith the claim of interest that the suit has been filed. The plaint was subsequently amended to state that the payment by the defendant as ` 19,12,800/- i.e. ` 1 lakh more and therefore the amount due from the defendant would be ` 8,72,723/- alongwith interest @ 16.85% per annum.
3. The defendant failed to appear and was therefore proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.8.1999.
4. Plaintiff-bank has filed affidavits by way of evidence of its various officers. The affidavits by way of evidence have been filed of Sh. S.K. Sharma (PW-1), Sh. Dharam Pal (PW-2), Sh. Devi Singh Palia (PW-3) and Smt. Leena Anand (PW-4).
5. The main affidavit of evidence is of Sh. Devi Singh Palia. Sh. Devi Singh Palia has deposed to the contents of the plaint and has proved and exhibited various confession letters of the defendant as Ex.Pw3/1 to Pw3/11. The statements CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 2 of 4 of account of different persons in fictitious name have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw3/12, Ex.Pw3/13, Ex.Pw3/35 and Ex.Pw3/41 etc. The various cheques and the corresponding debit vouchers and the related documents by which defendant withdrew the amounts have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw3/14 to Ex.Pw3/100.
6. Smt. Leena Anand through her affidavit deposed with respect to coming to the knowledge of the bank of the frauds committed by the defendant of opening different accounts. Smt. Leena Anand has proved and exhibited the accounts of those fictitious persons which are different from the accounts which have been duly proved and exhibited in the statement of Sh. Devi Singh Palia. The statement of account of Sh. Ajay Mohan is proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw4/1 and the cheque alongwith related debit vouchers have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw4/2 to Ex.Pw4/4. Similarly, other accounts, cheques and vouchers have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw4/5 to Ex.Pw4/59.
7. Sh. S.K. Sharma has proved and exhibited the power of attorney as Ex.Pw1/1 to file the suit. Statement of account has been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/3, legal notice has been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/4 and the corresponding postal receipts/AD cards are proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/5 to Ex.Pw1/16. The challans and F.I.R. lodged against the defendant have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw1/17 and Ex.Pw1/18.
CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 3 of 4
8. Sh. Dharam Pal has also proved and exhibited the power of attorney in his favour as Ex.Pw2/1 and his signatures on the amended plaint which have been proved and exhibited as Ex.Pw2/2.
9. The original documents are with the police authorities and therefore since the absence of the originals have been explained for, I allow the plaintiff to lead the secondary evidence which has been filed in this case.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of ` 8,72,723/- alongwith interest @ 16.85% per annum simple from 1.10.1993 till the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff will be entitled to the same rate of interest of 16.85% per annum simple pendente lite and future till realization against the defendant. Plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.
JULY 13, 2012 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
CS(OS) No. 460/1998 Page 4 of 4