HADIMBA CREATIONS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The com-plaint has been filed by the complainant Hadimba Creations and another against the opposite party SBI alleging deficiency.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the second complainant, Hadimba International Ltd. issued a cheque for Rs. 1,26,980/- on 4.3.1996 in favour of the first complainant Hadimba Creations but when the first complainant issued a cheque for the like amount in favour of M/s. Mafat Lal Finance Ltd. it was dishonoured as by that time the requisite amount had not been credited in the account of the 1st complainant, thus sullying the reputation of the complainants. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the O.P., the complaint has been filed praying for grant of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest as compensation and some other reliefs. Written version has been filed by the O.P. It takes the wind out of sail of the allegation of alleged deficiency. The facts are that the cheque for Rs. 1,26,980/- was issued on 1.2.1996 by the first complainant in favour of M/s. Mafat Lal Finance Company whereas in order to build up the requisite deposits another cheque was issued for the like amount by the second complainant in favour of the first complainant. Since on 1.3.1996 there were insufficient funds with the 1st complainant the cheque on presentation the same day had been dishonoured. It is admitted that after 4.3.1996, O.P. took three days to credit the said amount but this delay has had no bearing one way or the other on the dishonouring of the cheque issued on 1.3.1996. Obviously there were no funds in the account of 1st complainant on 1.3.1996; where is the question of any deficiency on the part of the O.P. ? This complaint is frivolous filed on concocted and incorrect grounds with a view to harass the O.P. which were attempted to be supplemented only on 4.3.1996. It was a case of becoming wise after the horse had bolted.

(3.) Our views are further strengthened by the fact that earlier on sixteen occasions including the present one, the cheques issued by the complainant had been dishonoured/bounced on account of issuing cheques without having sufficient balance in its account.