
A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit observed that the public
sector bank could not wriggle out of its liability in view of a departmental
inquiry and a report by a handwriting expert, which pointed out that the fraud
took place because of bank officials’ negligence.
The Court held that although genuineness of the signature could be a matter of
contention, the “Bank cannot be entirely free from blemish” in view of the
reports which suggest that the delinquent bank officials did not follow the
requisite norms and lacked due diligence.
The bench, however,
accepted the Bank’s argument to the extent that safe custody of the cheque was
the responsibility of the firm, The Tax Publishers, which suffered a loss of Rs
31 lakh when one of its employees reportedly stole two cheques and withdrew the
money in March 2009.
Therefore, the Court held, that the firm was not entitled to
receive the entire claim of Rs 1.5 crore, as sought. “In any case, liability of
the Bank may not be in entirety, as safe custody of cheques was responsibility
of the respondent. At the same time, the Bank cannot be entirely free from
blemish,” noted the bench.
But in order to give a quietus to the dispute that has been under trial for
almost 9 years, the Court said that a settlement should be arrived at to end
the protracted legal battle.
The Court then ordered: “Having regard to the entirety of the matter, we are of
the view that the claim of the respondent (publisher) ought to be satisfied by
paying a total amount of Rs 50 lakh by the petitioners (Bank) to the credit
account of the respondent within one month from today. Upon the said amount
being paid, the litigation between the parties will stand concluded.”
The bench, at the same time, clarified that the Bank shall be entitled to take
recourse available under the law to recover the amount from any person who
wrongfully withdrew the amount.
The UCO Bank had come in appeal before the apex court against an order by the
National Consumer Commission in August this year. The commission has fastened
the Bank with the liability of deficiency in service and referred the matter to
the state consumer commission for determining the quantum of damages that the
publication house should get.
No comments:
Post a Comment