1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 8 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2536 OF 2007 Slum Rehabilitation Authority ...Plaintiff Vs. State Bank of India ...Defendant Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhakoni with Mr. Jagdish Reddy for Plaintiff Mr. M.P.S. Rao with Mr. Mayur Shetty i/b.M.V. Kini & Co., for Defendant CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 10 THJUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.10 Crores under 2 Term Deposit Receipts (TDRs)issued by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for one year from 8/2/2006 to 8/2/2007 and from 15/2/2006 to 15/2/2007 with interest @ 7.55% p.a thereon. The consideration mentioned in the TDRs along with the interest shows the implied promise to repay the amount and is the liability of the Defendant Bank issuing the TDRs. A summary suit is maintainable 2 under the TDRs as held in paras 19 and 20 of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Jyotsna K. Valia Vs. T.S.Parekh and Co. 2007 4 M.L.J 517. 2. The Defendant Bank has challenged the issue of Receipts as forged. To show the forgery the Defendant Bank has relied upon 2 letters stated to have been covering letters sent by the Plaintiffs along with their cheques for crediting the account of one M/s. Sarvadharma Maanavaseva Charitable Trust. 3. This defence shows that the transaction of the Plaintiff with the Bank was in effect a transaction of the Plaintiff with the said M/s Sarvadharma Maanavaseva Charitable Trust instead. The said Trust is, therefore, the payee. The transaction made out by the Bank shows that the party would draw cheque upon the Bank calling upon the Bank to credit the cheque to the name of the Payee. The Payee would not be mentioned in the cheque, but would be mentioned in the covering letter. The Bank would credit the account of the Payee. Such a transaction is astoundingly esoteric. 3 4. Modern banking procedures have simplified banking transactions. The issue of cheques is one of the earliest banking procedures requiring a cheque to be drawn in favour of a Payee whose account has to be credited. That simple procedure is duplicated by the practice of the drawer of the cheque having to issue the cheque in favour of his Bank and calling upon the bank by a covering letter to issue another cheque in favour of the Payee or to otherwise credit the account of the Payee. The Defendant Bank has not shown any rules of the Bank contemplating such a duplicitous procedure. Judicial notice is required to be taken of the fact that parties draw cheques, which are negotiable instruments upon the other parties. The transaction is, therefore, between the drawer and the payee. It does not and cannot involve the Bank. The Bank is required to honour such instruments provided, ofcourse, the account of the drawer bears the necessary funds. The defence of the Bank in the absence of showing any rules cannot be accepted. 5. It was argued that this is the usual practice 4 of the Bank. Surprising as the practice is, the Court required the Bank to produce illustrations of such practice. Only one illustration has been produced. That is a transaction of May, 2009. It is the covering letter of the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation, Thane calling upon the Defendant Bank to credit the large sum of Rs. 74,36,173/- into the salary accounts of various persons. The transaction is most dissimilar to the Plaintiff s transaction. A large chunk of workmen are required to be issued cheques or to have their accounts credited and hence Commissioner of Workmen s Compensation would call upon the bank to credit various salary accounts. In the illustration shown to Court there have been 25 accounts to be credited with diverce amounts. Hence, it is seen that aside from the rules of the Bank allowing such practice, even the practice of the Bank in the usual course of its conduct is not shown. 6. Mr. Rao on behalf of the Defendant Bank has drawn my attention to 2 letters of the Bank, annexed by the Plaintiff to the plaint, showing one A.A. Desai a then officer of the Bank who was 5 deputed to collect the Plaintiff s cheques. Mr. Rao states, without showing any particulars that no such person was employed by the Defendant Bank. It is common knowledge, of which Judicial notice is required to be taken, that Banks seek to collect TDRs and FDRs through their staff. Mr. Kumbhakoni drew my specific attention to the exhibits annexed to the plaint to show how the Plaintiff sought to invest their funds in the TDRs and how the Defendant Bank sought to obtain the funds of the Plaintiff. On 7/2/2006 and 14/2/2006 the Plaintiff wrote their letters to the Defendant Bank for investing their funds being Rs.3 Crores and Rs.7 Crores respectively. On 8.2.2006 and 14.2.2006 the Defendant Bank deputed an officer A.A.Desai to collect the Plaintiff s cheques. Hence, on 8.2.2006 and 15.2.2006 the TDRs were issued. If the Plaintiffs had themselves or through their officer attended the Defendant Bank to handover the cheques, the TDRs would have been issued on 7.2.2006 and 14.2.2006 itself. The covering letter of the Plaintiff with instructions for investment as well as non-deduction of Income Tax at source as also their respective charges were ready on 7.2.2006 and 14.2.2006 itself. Because the 6 Defendant Bank offered to render further personal service by deputing their officer A.A. Desai to collect the charges on 8.2.2006 and 14.2.2006, the TDRs were delayed by 1 day each. In fact the Plaintiffs lost interest @ 7.55 p.a for 1 day on the large investments of Rs.7 Crores and 3 Crores. It is only when the Plaintiff received the letter of the Defendant Bank dated 23.3.2006 that it was put to notice of the Defendants case that the amounts were to be credited to the account of a third party as beneficiary. Such claim aside from showing the admission of receipt of the amounts cannot be countenanced. Such implausible claim cannot amount to any defence on merits. 7. There is nothing to show that the TDRs are forged. The receipt by the Bank from the Plaintiff s account is admitted. The Plaintiff alone must be entitled to the return of the amount with interest as stated in the TDRs. 8. The defence though made out to be a forgery is completely moonshine. Though there may be a fraud on the part of certain persons in the transaction involving the Trust, the Plaintiff has nothing to 7 do with such transaction. 9. The Plaintiff is the Government Authority. The Plaintiff holds public funds. The Plaintiff has to invest those funds from time to time. The investment must only enure for the benefit of the Plaintiff. The TDR is one such investment. The Plaintiff s account is admittedly debited. The Defendant bank has admittedly received amounts. 10. The Defendant Bank shall deposit in Court Rs.10 Crores within 10 weeks. Upon such deposit the Defendant Bank shall be entitled to file its written statement. The written statement shall be filed within 30 days of the deposit. 11. Summons for Judgment is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)