SONIA SYAL Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by the applicant/defendant-bank for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicant/defendant-bank stated that the crux of the plaintiff's cause of action was unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- from her account maintained with the applicant/defendant-bank. He stated that a bare perusal of the statement of account filed by the plaintiff herself along with the plaint would reveal that on 29th September, 2009, there were three investments of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and Rs. 60,00,000/- made on behalf of the plaintiff with three Mutual Fund Houses, i.e., Fortis Flexi Debt, Franklin Templeton and HDFC, respectively. He pointed out that the same statement of account filed by the plaintiff further reflected that all these investments in the mutual funds had either matured or were redeemed by the plaintiff prematurely. He stated that the statement of account also reflected that all these redemption were duly credited in the account of plaintiff along with profits generated on the mutual funds. Consequently, according to learned counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff had invested funds in the mutual funds which she had redeemed with profits.

(3.) He further submitted that the claim of the plaintiff was liable to be rejected for the reason that the plaintiff had not even disclosed these redemption and earning of profit in the entire plaint and had tried to mislead this Court by stating that there had been an embezzlement of funds from her account.