STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHAMBHU DAYAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.3.1999 which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1987 whereby the defendant/appellant i.e. State Bank of India and their agents were restrained from deducting any amount from the salary of the plaintiff towards the payment of the amount outstanding in the debt of the son of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff Shambhu Dayal Verma was employed with the State Bank of India at the Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. His son Sunil Dutt Verma had opened a current account with the Jaipur Branch of the State Bank of India; he had taken an overdraft in the said current account. Sunil Dutt Verma, had failed to make the payment in the overdraft facility availed of by him. The defendant i.e. the State Bank of India had pressurized the plaintiff that the amount due against his son would be adjusted against the salary due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 25225.65 in instalments but on the undertaking that no interest should be charged. The bank started deducting a sum of Rs. 250/- per month from his salary. The defendant i.e. the State Bank of India without confirming the waiver of interest continued to deduct this amount from the salary of the plaintiff. Legal notice dated 25.10.1983 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant informing him that the interest had not been waived; but to no avail. Present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant bank from deducting this amount was accordingly filed.

(3.) Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court endorsed this finding. The finding had been answered while dealing with the three issues which had been framed by the Trial Judge. The said finding in the impugned judgment had been returned as follows: