- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 12 February 2016
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- RFA 128/2015
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
"pp"..
Case details
Parties and counsel
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th February, 2016 + RFA No. 128/2015 M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Adv. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Bahl, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The appeal impugns a judgment and decree, dated 15th October, 2014 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, of dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant, for recovery of Rs. 6 lacs from the respondent Bank as not maintainable. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. 3. Admit. 4. Considering the fact that if the appeal were to be allowed, the matter will have to be remanded back for trial, with the consent of the counsels the appeal is taken up for hearing today itself. 5. The counsel for the appellant has been heard. The need to hear the counsel for the respondent Bank has not arisen. 6. The appellant instituted the suit pleading, (i) that it is carrying on business as a freight forwarding agency and during the course of its business receives Demand Drafts (DD) from its clients in favour of the shipping lines carrying the goods of the clients of the appellant and submits the said DDs with the shipping line to cover / secure the shipping line for damage if any caused to the shipping line during de-stuffing of the containers of the shipping line and the said DDs are kept by the shipping line with themselves, to be encashed in the event of any damage being caused and to be returned if no damage is caused; (ii) that the appellant in the course of its business received a DD for Rs.6 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank, New Delhi from its client Reliance Communication Ltd. (Reliance) and submitted the same to the shipping line CSAV Group Agencies (India Pvt. Ltd.) (CSAV); (iii) however when Reliance asked the appellant for return of the said DD, the appellant realised that the receipt obtained by it of deposit of the said DD from CSAV had been misplaced in the office of the appellant and intimated CSAV so and asked CSAV for return of the DD; (iv) CSAV informed the appellant that the aforesaid DD of Rs.6 lacs had already been collected from their office; (v) that the appellant on making enquiries learnt that the said DD had been encashed by opening an account in the name of CSAV at the respondent/defendant Bank and a sum of Rs.2 lacs had already been withdrawn from the said account in the name of CSAV with the respondent Bank; and, (vi) on alarm being raised, the balance amount of Rs.4 lacs then still lying in that account with the respondent Bank was frozen (the counsel for the appellant informs that the said amount is still lying frozen). The suit from which this appeal arises was filed impleading the respondent Bank only as a defendant thereto, claiming the said amount of Rs.6 lacs from the respondent Bank contending that the respondent Bank had opened the bank account in which the aforesaid DD was encashed without satisfying itself of the identity of the persons who had opened the bank account in the name of CSAV and without complying with the procedures prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for opening of bank account and owing to the said negligence of the respondent Bank, the appellant had suffered a loss since Reliance has deducted the amount of Rs.6 lacs from the dues of the appellant. 7. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement (but the need for going therein is not felt since the suit has been dismissed on the aspect of maintainability) and on the pleadings of the parties issues framed on 11th January, 2012 and the matter posted for evidence of the appellant. 8. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for appellant"s evidence on 28th March, 2012, 12th July, 2012, 13th December, 2012 & 8th February, 2013 on the request of the appellant and finally one of the witnesses of the appellant/plaintiff was examined, cross examin
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.