VIJAYA BANK Vs. SUNDER LAL SHAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal Nos. 55, 56 and 57 of 1993 are being disposed of by this common order as the facts are similar in all these three appeals. These appeals have been filed in all the three case by the Vijaya Bank against the Order of Maharashtra State Commission dated 2.11.1992. Shri Sunder Lal C. Shah and Shri Dilip S. Shah, the complainants in the case before the State Commission had alleged that the Vijaya Bank-appellant allowed a withdrawal from the Current A/c Nos. 217 and 220 in the name of M/s. S.C. Shah & Co. and M/s. Maharashtra Tea Depot, respondents herein, by Shri Babu Lal Shah, which was without proper authority. It was also alleged that this withdrawal by Shri Babu Lal Shah was allowed in collusion with the officers of the Bank and amounted to negligence in service as the withdrawal was contrary to the instructions and advice given by the complainants. The complainants claimed back Rs. 1.55 lakhs, the amount so withdrawn, together with interest. They also claimed Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of business and Rs. 25,000/- for mental torture. The Maharashtra State Commission came to the conclusion that Shri Sunder Lal Shah alone was entitled to operate Current A/c No. 220 and therefore the amount of Rs. 1.55 lakhs withdrawn by Shri Babu Lal Shah, was contrary to the instructions given to the Bank. They, therefore, awarded the relief in the nature of a direction to the Vijaya Bank, Sangli Branch to pay to the complainants Rs. 1.55 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 5.3.1991 till the date of payment and also Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the loss and expenses in filing the complaint.

(2.) THE respondents were not present either in person or through authorised representatives.

(3.) THE partners liability letter clearly indicates that all transactions entered into with the Bank, or through the Bank with any other bank, from time to time, by all or any of the partners, whether under the signature of the firm or subscribed by the individual signature of the partners, whether severally or jointly, may be conclusively recorded by the bank as entered into for, and on behalf of them, jointly and severally and also on behalf of the firm. In the face of this clear declaration for their liability in regard to these accounts, we are unable to uphold the order of the State Commission, Maharashtra and therefore, set it aside. We accept the appeal preferred by the Vijaya Bank against these orders. No costs.