Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Relief."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court has fallen into an error while arriving at a finding with respect to issue No. 4 in holding the appellant-bank to be liable. It is argued that the amount which respondent No.1/plaintiff claimed was based upon a forged pay order and fraud nullifies everything, and the trial Court cannot give a sustainable legal finding promoting a fraud and forcing the appellant-bank to pay under the forged pay order. It is argued that so far as the amount credited in the loan account of defendant No.1, once the transaction took place, there cannot arise a question of turning back the transaction inasmuch the transaction took place by a proper channel whereby respondent No.1/plaintiff did make a payment of `3,00,000/- to defendant No.1/respondent No.2 under the agreement dated 10.12.1982. May be, the agreement dated 10.12.1982 was breached, however, that cannot mean that this appellant-bank will be liable to pay the amount because it is based on account of breach of contract and for such breach, it would only be the defendant No.1/respondent no.2 who received the amount of `3,00,000/- be bound to refund the amount.

8. I further agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, that fraud nullifies everything, and once it has been established on record that the pay order which was issued was not authorised, and infact was found to be a forged and fabricated document, such fraud nullifies everything and the appellant-bank cannot be forced to pay under a forged pay order. I agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant because it is not the legal position that a bank is forced to make payment under a forged pay order merely because one officer has issued the same though it is found that such instrument is a forged and fabricated instrument.