T. PALANIAPPAN Vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 28.03.2016 in Appln.Nos.7450 and 7451 of 2015.

(2.) The appellant herein is the applicant in A.Nos.7450 and 7451 of 2015 filed before this Court. A.No.7450 of 2015 was filed to grant leave to the appellant to institute the suit against the first respondent/first defendant and A.No.7451 of 2015 was filed to grant leave to institute the suit against all the respondents / defendants. In the plaint, it has been averred that the same has been filed for recovery of money due to him from the defendants in respect of his service with the first defendant -Bank and in respect of unauthorised withdrawal from his Savings Bank Account by the first defendant - Bank. The appellant has stated that he was last working as a Manager in the officer cadre in the CDPC Department, in the defendants -Bank, and that as a Branch Head, he had a duty to canvass for new accounts; that he was specifically posted in his native place by the respondent Bank in order to take advantage of his communal contacts to develop the business of the Bank; that many of the account holders who were introduced by him are either distant or close relatives of the plaintiff. It is further stated that one such Account Holder by name T.Arunachalam, approached the Bank for opening an account informing that he was settled in USA and was looking forward to RTGS funds transfer operations through e -mail instructions. The appellant states that his junior colleagues who were working in the Bank proceeded to act on the e -mail instructions given by the said T.Arunachalam, now and then. While so, a Circular was issued by the bank in 2014 stating that fund transfer should not take place on e -mail instructions. There has been deviation on many occasions on several issues by various branches of the defendant Bank when they chose to by -pass the internal circulars with a view to retain the account holders while making sure that they do not migrate to another bank. While so, between the period 10.10.2013 and 24.10.2013, since there were e - mail requests from the constituent's e -mail id for fund transfer, the same were effected by the juniors of the plaintiff without any hesitation, as similar such requests were made in the past, and such transfers amounted to Rs.33,81,300/ -. After completion of a transaction for transfer of funds pursuant to an e -mail request in the account of the said T.Arunachalam involving a sum of Rs.25,30,000/ -, the same got re -credited back to the account. Hence, the appellant suspected foulplay and thereafter instructed his juniors not to act further on any e -mail request in this particular account. He also asked the said person to contact him forthwith. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the appellant through the said T.Arunachalam, that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs have been withdrawn from his account through net banking unauthorisedly. For these unauthorised transactions, the appellant was held responsible. The appellant states that till date, the defendant bank has not issued any memo or charge nor did they question about the non -compliance of the internal circular which requires the officials of the bank not to act on e -mail instructions of the constituent of the bank to transfer funds from their account. But, the bank appropriated a sum of Rs.31,52,000/ - from the appellant's account in view of the fraudulent transaction involving him to the tune of Rs.31,52,000/ - as stated above. In spite of calling upon the bank to release the retirement benefits, there was no follow up action. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) When these applications came up before this Court for hearing, it was argued on behalf of the appellant / applicant, that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the suit is maintainable before this Court. It was further contended that the Human Resources Department of the Bank which authorised to release his retirement benefits, is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence he is entitled to lay the suit before this Court.