STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil First Appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 18th April, 2001 passed by Learned 1st Additional Judge, Jammu in Civil Original Suit titled Union of India v. Kumar Traders and Anrs., whereby the learned trial judge has decreed the plaintiff/respondent no. 1's suit and held the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 entitled to an amount of Rs. 94,092.60/- along with interest @ 10% per annum for the date of payment i.e. 27th August, 1990 till realization of the decretal amount. The appeal arises against the following backdrop:-

(2.) The respondent no. 2 pursuant to supply order dated 8th June, 1988 agreed to supply MS Pipes 300 mm Dia to respondent no. 1 through Garrison Engineer, Nagrota, on payment of an amount of Rs. 94,093/-. The goods supplied by the respondent no. 2 were found not in accordance with the agreed specifications. However, the respondent no. 1 before the delivered goods were inspected, handed over a cheque drawn on appellant-bank for an amount of Rs. 94,093/- to respondent no. 2. Later when it was realized that the goods supplied did not answer description, the respondent no. 1 addressed a letter to the appellant, asking the appellant-bank not to make the payment on the cheque drawn in favour of the respondent no. 2. The appellant-bank is said to have, nonetheless, made payment on the cheque to respondent no. 2, constraining the respondent no. 1 to bring a recovery suit against the appellant-bank for an amount of Rs. 94,093/-. The plaintiff/respondent No.1's case in brief is that the appellant-bank had disobeyed its direction as a banker and made the payment on the cheque issued to respondent no. 2 despite a clear direction from the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 not to make the payment and thus made itself liable to pay the amount, wrongly paid to the respondent no. 2, to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 joined/impleaded the contractor i.e. respondent no. 2 as a defendant in the suit alleging breach of contract against the respondent no. 2 and asked for the same relief against the respondent no. 2 as sought against the appellant-bank.