STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, the appellant has preferred this present appeal.

(2.) The facts as enumerating from the record are that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,63,180/- against the defendant/appellant bank. The plaintiff/respondent bank had a current bank account of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and the NTPC during the course of reconciliation of their said current bank account, mentioned four forged cheques, namely No. 566603 for Rs. 3,08,000/-, No.566623 for Rs. 1,48,000/-, No.566634 for Rs. 2,80,000/- and No. 566610 for Rs. 2,67,000/-, which were not issued by them and all the said cheques were drawn in favour of one Mahesh Divedi, and had been debited to their said account and the said forged cheques were collected in clearing by the defendant/appellant bank. The defendant No.2 is alleged to have approached the defendant/appellant bank, posing himself as Mahesh Divedi for the purpose of opening a saving bank account around 16th November, 1999. The defendant/appellant bank allegedly, without making any inquiry as to the credentials of defendant no.2 opened the said account, thereby not following the requirement as laid down under section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The defendant no.2 is said to have made an initial deposit in his bank account, which was withdrawn subsequently in part and soon thereafter, the four cheques mentioned above were all given to the defendant/appellant bank for collection, which the defendant/appellant bank permitted the withdrawal of the four cheques by the defendant no.2. It is further alleged that the customer of the plaintiff/respondent bank, NTPC had stated clearly that all the said four cheques were forged and had not been issued by the NTPC or under its authority.

(3.) The defendant/appellant bank in its written statement has stated that one Mahesh Divedi opened a savings account with them. The said account was opened in pursuance of the compliance of RBI guidelines and in accordance with the prevalent banking norms and practices. Mr. Mahesh Divedi, subsequently deposited the said four cheques which were sent for clearing by the defendant/appellant bank in their normal course of banking business. The said cheques were said to have been first cleared by the payee bank which is the plaintiff/respondent bank in the present matter. Upon receiving a clearance by the payee bank, the account of Mahesh Divedi was said to have been credited with the proceeds of the said four cheques. Subsequently, Mahesh Divedi withdrew the amount of the cheques so credited to his account. The defendant/appellant bank has categorically stated in its written statement that opening of a bank account and the clearing of a cheque are two different issues and the same cannot be clubbed together. Furthermore, the defendant/appellant bank was well within its duty of opening the bank account of Mahesh Divedi as it followed all the necessary guidelines prescribed by the RBI and thus it cannot be held responsible by the plaintiff/respondent bank which is the payee bank in this case with respect to wrongful clearing of the cheque.