LPA No. 1350 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1350 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.02.2011 Sucha Singh son of Jeet Singh ......APPELLANT VERSUS State of Punjab and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. *** RANJAN GOGOI, CJ (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2009 whereby the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 24.05.1999 which has been upheld by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority has been affirmed. Though the appellant had denied any liability, the learned Single Judge has recorded that such liability was determined by the Arbitrator on the basis of the entries in the record of the Bank showing an amount of ` 26,424/- to be outstanding against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge also observed that entries in the Bank record carry a legal presumption under the Bankers Book Evidence Act. LPA No. 1350 of 2010 2 The second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the letter written by the appellant admitting his liability was not actually written by him. The learned Single Judge perused the original records of the Revisional Authority and came to the conclusion that such letter was in existence and the petitioner had denied the said fact by filing a false affidavit. Accordingly, the Award of the Arbitrator was affirmed though the interest payable on the awarded amount was reduced from 16% to 9% per annum. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are unassailable in law and the contentions as urged in the writ petition which have been reiterated before us in the appeal, are without any merit. The liability of the appellant has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge on due consideration of the relevant records. Therefore, there will be no occasion for this Court to cause any interference with the findings made. Consequently, the Letter Patent Appeal is not being entertained any further. The L.P.A. Is, accordingly, dismissed. However, no order as to costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 24, 2011 pj