ARVIND KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-01-04, passed by additional District Judge, Bhanpura (Camp- Garoth), District Mandsaur, in Civil suit No. 16-B/03, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,455/- alongwith interest @ 12. 50% p. a. , the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the appellant on 10-04-2000 for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,20,206/- alleging that the respondent is a Bank and appellant was posted as Branch Manager in the respondent bank, at Shyamgarh Branch. It was alleged that appellant performed his duties negligently during his tenure. It was alleged that due to the negligence on the part of appellant respondent suffered loss of Rs. 89,597/- as per income leakage order report dated 12-04-97. It was alleged that out of the aforesaid amount respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 78,260/- from the appellant personally. It was further alleged that on 24-04-96 appellant took a sum of rs. 25,000/- from Mangilal and Sukhdev, son of Amarlal for depositing in their loan account. It was alleged that out of which only Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the appellant and Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited. It was alleged that on 07-09-98 the borrower has moved an application with counter foil, which bears the signature of the appellant. It was alleged that respondent has deposited a sum of Rs. 9,146/- in the account of borrower, which includes the interest of rs. 4,146/ -. It was alleged that thus the respondent is entitled for a sum of rs. 87,362/- alongwith interest, which comes to Rs. 1,20,206/ -. In the suit it was prayed that a decree be passed against the appellant.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the appellant the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that respondent suffer any loss on account of negligence on the part of the appellant. It was also denied that Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited by the appellant in the loan account of Mangilal and Sukhdev, after taking the same from the borrower. In the written statement appellant alleged that the copies of the documents alongwith relative vouchers be supplied to the appellant on the basis of which the amount has been claimed from the respondent. Preliminary objection was also raised to the effect that the suit itself filed by the respondent is not maintainable and is barred under Section 54 of the Banking Regulation act 1959. It was prayed that the suit filed by the respondent be dismissed.