STATE BANK OF INDIA, SHILLONG Vs. T. BARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-2004 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in Money Suit No. 4(H) of 1999 decreeing a sum of Rs. 4,87,890/- with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1-10-1999 till realization of the decretal amount in full in favour of the respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff - respondent, are that he is a registered Valuer of immovable properties with the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and is, presently, carrying on the profession of Consulting Engineer and Valuer and is rendering his services to the Government Department, Nationalized Banks and the general public on payment of professional fees as his professional services are found to be untarnished. On 15-3-1997, the appellant - Bank engaged him for evaluating fair market value of two plots of land belonging to M/s Eastern Mining & Allied Industries Ltd., Shillong ("the company" for short) for the purpose of creating an equitable mortgage as security for the financial assistance being accommodated to the latter. These lands are situated at Maingmawdar in the West Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya. On completion of the valuation, he submitted his report along with the bill for his professional fee to the appellant - Bank for payment. When no response was received from the appellant, he on 6-4-1998 wrote to the appellant demanding payment of the fee as per the bill submitted by him. The Chief Manager of the appellant - Bank by his letter dated 27-8-1998 informed him that they had already directed the company to settle the payment. According to the respondent, the appellant - Bank was in this manner trying to avoid their liability and resorted to dilatory tactics to that end by needlessly asking the company to authorize them to deduct the amount from their account. It is the case of the respondent that as he was engaged by the appellant - Bank, the responsibility for the payment squarely fell on them inasmuch as they never instructed him in their letter of appointment to realize the fee from the company. It is also the contention of the respondent that the appellant used to make such payment to him for carrying out similar assignments on earlier occasions and that they were also aware of the scale of fees prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for undertaking the job of valuation. As the company was in no way involved in the issue of payment of such fees, he could not legally claim the fee from them. It is claimed by the respondent that the amount of fee payable to him in accordance with the scale of fees prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, is Rs. 3,75,300/- and that this amount together with the interest calculated from the date of submission of bill upto 1-10-1999 is Rs. 1,12,590/-. This thus resulted in instituting the money suit for a decree of Rs. 4,87,890/- plus interest pendente lite @ 18% per annum with effect from 1-10-1999 till realization of the decretal amount.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed by the trial Court : 1) Whether the suit is maintainable? 2) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 3) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit? 4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?