Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit seeking recovery of Rs 2,00,000/- and costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a director of M/S Mega Grain Trading Company Pet. Ltd. having its registered office at 403-A, Prabhat Kiran Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. That plaintiff presented the cheque bearing number 374398 amounting to ₹6,93,100/- with the defendant bank on 25.07.2014. That the defendant bank sent the said cheque for clearance twice on 26.07.2014 and 30.07.2014. That as per the statement of account, no reason has been mentioned for non-clearance of cheque on 26.07.2014 but as per the statement of account dated 31.07.2014, the cheque returning reason is "instrument outdated/stale". That the plaintiff deposited the cheque within the limitation period, but due to the fault of the defendant bank, the plaintiff suffered great agony, harassment and loss of reputation. that illegal notice was sent to the defendant bank on 23.02.2015 to which the reply dated 20.03.2015 was filed by defendant bank. Hence, the present suit.

ISSUE NO.2 - Whether the defendant faulted in processing the clearance of the cheque presented by the plaintiff on 25.07.2014? OPP ISSUE NO.3 - whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed? OPP

13. The aforesaid issues are taken up together being inter-

Neeraj Dhawan vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India CS SCJ No. : 94173/16 Page no. 6 of 10 related. It is the case of the plaintiff that cheque in question was presented with the defendant bank on 25.07.14 and was sent for clearance twice by the defendant bank i.e. 26.07.14, and 30.07.14 but was returned by the defendant bank for the reason "outdated/stale". PW-1 during his cross examination, deposed that the cheque in question was dated 30.04.14 and was deposited with the defendant bank on 25.07.14.

In the present matter, the cheque dated 30.04.2014 was presented with the defendant bank on 25.07.2014 which was sent for clearance by defendant bank twice i.e. 26.07.14 and 30.07.14. It is evident from the pay in slip that the cheque in question was presented on 25.07.2014 and was sent for clearance for the first time on 26.07.2014 and for the second time on 30.07.2014 through CTS. DW-1 deposed that once the cheque is presented to the bank for clearance, the same cannot be presented for clearance again, unless the same is returned to the customer. DW- 1 submitted that the cheque was returned to the plaintiff on 30.07.2014 and on the very same date, the plaintiff again presented the cheque. It is important to notice that no reason has been mentioned by the defendant bank for the first return and had returned the cheque on 30.07.2014, with the reason "outdated/stale". The cheque 30.04.2014 could not have become stale before 30.07.2014 but the cheque was returned on 30.07.2014 with the reason "stale". The defendant Bank in its defence stated the cheque in question was sent by defendant on 26.07.2014, for clearing and the day being a Saturday and half working day, the clearing was not completed. That 27.07.2014, was a Sunday and no cheque could be sent for clearing. That 28.07.2014, was a Monday and the report of the cheque sent for the clearing on 26.07.2014, was received late on 28.07.2014, and there was no time left for clearing. That on 29.07.2014, it was a Neeraj Dhawan vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India CS SCJ No. : 94173/16 Page no. 8 of 10 holiday due to Idul Fitr and bank was closed. That on 30.07.2014, the cheque in question was immediately sent for clearing, but the same was returned for the reason "instrument outdated/stale". When questioned on the report received on 28.07.2014, regarding the cheque sent for the clearing on 26.07.2014, DW-1 replied that the report pertains to the number of cheques presented on the previous date by the clearing house. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque in question was sent for clearance through CTS, where the physical cheque is retained by the collecting bank and only the image of the cheque is sent to the payee bank. It is evident from the pay in slip that the cheque was sent for clearance on 26.07.2014 and 30.07.2014 through CTS and the defence taken by the defendant bank that 3-4 working days are required for clearing is not tenable. Lastly, when asked to bring the report and the register of the cheques sent for clearance, the defendant bank failed to produce the same on record, stating that the records are not available/ preserved for more than five years.