Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 1205
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alok Singh, J.
Bank Of Baroda
Versus
A.K.Sharma
Regular Second Appeal No. 2789 of 1987
Decided On : MARCH 17, 2010
The limitation for recovery of loss caused to the bank by the employee's misconduct is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and Section 17(I)(a) of the Limitation Act, which stipulate that the limitation period begins to run from the date the misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff.
Headnote:
Limitation - Recovery of Loss due to Employee Misconduct - Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under taking Act No. 5 of 1970) - Article 113 of the Limitation Act - Section 17(I)(a) of the Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit against a former employee and his wife for misappropriating amounts entrusted to him, causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation, and the first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court on the question of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court affirmed issues regarding the plaintiff-Bank's corporate status and the competency of the plaintiff to file the suit. However, the first appellate court held that the limitation for recovery of loss caused to the bank by the employee's misconduct would lie within three years from the date the misconduct became known to the bank.
Issues: The issues included the corporate status of the plaintiff-Bank, the competency of the plaintiff to file the suit, the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the disputed amount, and whether the suit was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitation for recovery of loss caused to the bank by the employee's misconduct would lie within three years from the date the misconduct became known to the bank, as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act and Section 17(I)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal failed, and the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
ALOK SINGH, J.
1 Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Bank under Section 100 C.P.C challenging the judgment and decree dated April 4, 1987 passed by First Appellate Court/District Judge, Gurdaspur thereby allowing first appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-Bank on the ground, suit is barred by limitation.
2 The brief facts of the case are that the suit was brought by Bank of Baroda against A.K. Sharma, Ex. Accountant of the Bank and Ms. Anita Rani wife of A.K. Sharma, alleging inter alia that A.K. Sharma-defendant worked as Accountant in the Bank. During this period he committed breach of trust by misappropriating the amounts entrusted to him as Accountant by various clients of the plaintiff-Bank; in this way he caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff-Bank; fictitious entries in the account of the Bank were made; documents were forged; receipts were issued by A.K. Sharma defendant No. 1, to the clients; however, amounts were not credited.
3 Defendants contested the suit and preliminary objections were taken. The suit was barred by time; it was bad for misjoinder of parties; it was also denied that the plaintiff-Bank was a corporate body and R.S. Kapur was competent to the file the suit; on merits, all the allegations were denied; there was no wrongful loss to the Bank; there was no breach of trust; all the allegations of fraud alleged in the plaint were specifically denied; defendant No. 1 was not informed of any inquiry; Civil Court at Panchkula had not jurisdiction to try the suit.
4 In the replication the plaintiff-Bank controverted the allegations of the defendants.
5 Learned trial Court framed following issues: Whether the plaintiff-Bank is a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under taking Act No. 5 of 1970)? OPP.
2. Whether Sh. R.S Kapoor is competentto file the present suit? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the disputed amount from the defendants alleged in the plaint? OPP.
4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
4(A) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant No. 2? OPD.
6 Issue No. 1 and 2 were decided together in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. It was held that the plaintiff-Bank was a corporate body and R.S. Kapoor was competent to file the present suit. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-Bank was held entitled to recover the disputed amounts from the defendants. Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendants. It was held that the suit was nottime barred. Issue No. 4-A was decided against the defendants. The suit was not bad for misjoinder of parties. In the result the suit was decreed as stated above.
7 First Appellate Court reversed findings of learned trial Court on the question of limitation and has held that limitation for recovery of amount of loss caused to the Bank by misconduct of the Bank employee would lie within three years from the date, misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff-Bank. First Appellate Courts judgment is being assailed in the present appeal.
8 I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank and perused the record.
9 Findings of the trial Court on issues No. 1, 2, and 4-A have not been challenged in appeal. The same are therefore affirmed.
10 Undisputedly, suit of the plaintiff/ Bank was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Mahabir Kishore v. State of MP. AIR 1990 SC 313: (1989) 4 SCC 1, has argued that limitation would start running from the date mistake was found proved either by the Court or in departmental proceedings. He further argued, that in the present case limitation would start running from the date defendant-employee was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and not from any date prior to enquiry report.
11 . None is appearing for the respondent, hence, for the purpose of fair decision of
