Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that upon reconstitution of the partnership firm the old account was not closed but only broken for crystallising the liabilities of the partners. As per the practice of the Bank, when any partner of the firm retires then the existing account need not be closed but has to be stopped / broken. The Branch also issued new chequebook only after receiving written request from the proprietor. The proprietor after reconstitution of the firm ought to have drawn the cheque in the capacity of the proprietor of the firm. However, the proprietor of M/s. Daga Commerce has drawn the same through its partners which was no more in existence at the time of drawing the cheques. This prima- facie shows the malafide intention of the drawer to which the Bank has absolutely no control. The cheque was returned for the reason that it does not contain proper title and not for want of proper signature. The payee was advised to represent the cheque after rectifying the defects, which was not done. Since the Complainant could not comply with the requirement, the cheque could not be honoured. In the instant case the Complainant / payee not being a customer of the drawee Bank cannot enforce his right under the Ombudsman Scheme and therefore, the Bank is not liable to the Complainant except to its customers. Further, as per section 31 of N.I. Act the Bank can always dishonour payment on any 'such cheque which is full of ambiguities / defect / drawing of money by the holder on the said cheque, appears to be unlawful. It is further submitted that U/S-6 of N.I. Act "one of the essential elements of the cheque is that the drawer of a cheque should NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12235 7 W.P.No.5823 OF 2005 be a certain person if no so the instrument will not be dealt with as a cheque." Since the cheque presented was defective the Bank could not honour it and thereby the Bank has neither committed any negligence by returning the defective cheque nor there is any deficiency of the service on the part of the drawee Bank to attract the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002. It is further submitted that the Banking Ombudsman ignoring the plea of the Bank, issued advice directing payment of compensation to the petitioner against which respondent No.4 filed the review application under Clause 17 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002. The Banking Ombudsman passed the award dated 24.06.2004 against which another review was filed which was allowed vide order dated 19.01.2005 and the case was remanded back. It is submitted that the Banking Ombudsman rightly passed the order dated 24.06.2004 taking into consideration the order of the review authority and accordingly rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. It is further submitted that complaint of the petitioner was not maintainable considering the objectives of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme as petitioner was not constituent of the Bank. The petitioner had remedy under section 138 of the N.I Act against Mr. Girdhar Daga partner M/s Daga Commerce. Section 31 of the N.I. Act only provides compensation to drawer and not payee. Section 7 of the N.I Act defines "drawer" and "drawee". Lastly, it is submitted that the review filed by the respondent No.4 was within limitation and it was with the approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that due to reconstitution of the firm, the account of the erstwhile partnership firm M/s Daga Commerce, Jabalpur was broken for the sake of crystallising the liability of the partners. The said partnership firm on dissolution became a proprietorship concern NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12235 8 W.P.No.5823 OF 2005 which is altogether a different identity. The action of the answering respondent is absolutely legal and does not call for any interference. The advice of the Banking Ombudsman (M.P. & Chhattisgarh), Bhopal was erroneous and so also the Award dated 24.6.2004. In view of this, the Reviewing Authority rightly remanded the matter back to the Banking Ombudsman (M.P. & Chhattisgarh), Bhopal and the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, Bhopal is legally perfect and need no interference. In support of his contention, he relied in the case of Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes- (2007) 5 SCC 103 and Seth Jagjivan Mavji Vithalani Vs. Ranchhod Das Meghji -(1954) 2 SCC-202. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less the reliefs sought in this petition and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.