Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 762
High Court Of Delhi
BIPINDRA NARAIN KARN - Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA - Respondent
Civil 290 of 1998
Decided On : 09/05/2000
ARUN AGRAWAL, S.K.Singla
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper consideration of evidence and certification as per the Bankers Book Evidence Act before refusing leave to defend in a credit card liability case.
Headnote:
Banking Law - Credit Card Liability - The court allowed the petitioner to defend the suit after finding that the trial court had wrongly refused him leave to defend based solely on a computerized bank statement, without considering other evidence and without proper certification as required under the Bankers Book Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner availed of the credit card facility of the respondent bank and allegedly incurred liability. The bank filed a money suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code, and the petitioner's request for leave to defend was rejected. The trial court passed a decree against the petitioner, who challenged it on the ground that leave was wrongly refused to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in refusing the petitioner leave to defend based solely on a computerized bank statement, without considering other evidence and without proper certification as required under the Bankers Book Evidence Act. The court allowed the petitioner to defend the suit by setting aside the impugned decree and granting him leave to defend, subject to depositing a specified amount before the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of leave to defend by the trial court based solely on a computerized bank statement, without considering other evidence and without proper certification as required under the Bankers Book Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the improper reliance on a computerized bank statement by the trial court, without considering other evidence and without proper certification as required under the Bankers Book Evidence Act. The petitioner's plea of limited liability and willingness to discharge it on determination were also considered in granting him leave to defend.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned decree was set aside. The petitioner was granted leave to defend the suit, subject to depositing a specified amount before the trial court, and was given one month to file his written statement.
( 1 ) PETITIONER availed of the credit card facility of respondent bank and allegedly incurred liability of Rs. 1,36,309. 82. A demand was raised against him which he failed to satisfy. The Bank, therefore, filed a money suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. He sought leave to defend which was rejected and the decree for Rs. 2,22,644. 92 along with 12% per annum pendente lite and future interest passed against him. He now challenges the decree on the ground that leave was wrongly refused to him. Petitioner s grievance is that Trial-court refused him leave by placing whole hog reliance on a computerised statement of account submitted by the bank and dis-believed. petitioner s version that only Rs. 29,906. 00 was due from him and consequently passed a decree against him. The trial court, according to him, had fallen in error by straight away taking the computerised bank statement by treating it as conclusive proof without appreciating that it was neither certified to be true copy of the entries contained in bank s books nor it carried a certificate as contemplated under the Bankers Book Evidence Act.
( 2 ) IT is submitted that trial court ought to have asked for charge slips which were in its custody and which could authenticate new outstanding liability against him. He has also placed a statement of account on record to show that Rs. 1,10,000. 00 was paid by him to liquidate the liability. Petitioner has a point and it appears that his approach was fair. Once he had pleaded limited liability and volunteered to discharge it on determination, there was no reason for trial court to refuse him leave. The court seems to have acted in hot haste by placing total reliance on computerised Bank statement to shut all doors at him. The order refusing him leave to defend consequently falls and so does the decree based on it.
( 3 ) VIEWED thus, this revision petition is allowed and impugned decree set aside. Petitioner is granted leave to defend the suit subject to his depositing Rs. 50,000. 00 before trial court. He may file his written statement within one month from today and the suit shall thereafter proceed and be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the trial court on 15th September,2000.
