SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 318

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
K. L. Tripathi, Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 1978
Decided on 4-10-1983

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, MIRA MATHUR, O.C.MATHUR, P.R.MRIDUL, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.K.GARG, S.S.SHARMA, S.SUKUMARAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 and 226 - Companies Act - Section 237 (b) - State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules - Rule 50 (1) and 49 (f) - Working as Branch Manager - Bills and records – Investigation - Complaints were received about his conduct from Branch Manager , Staff Officer Grade II, who reported to Head Office that, from informations given to him by some members of staff of Deoria Branch, namely, Head Clerk, M. S. Gupta, Field Officer and from other enquiries made by him he found that bills negotiated by Gorakhpur Branch under a Revolving Letter of Credit No. 20/1 dated established by Deoria Branch an Branch for Rs. 2 lakhs at a time subject to a maximum of Rupees 17 lakhs had remained unpaid to extent of Rs. 12 lakhs and that openers of Letter of Credit, Deoria were unable to meet their obligations- clauses of credit had not been drawn properly, bills were not negotiated thereunder by his Branch and were instead, sent on collection basis - Certain other allegations giving particulars of bills and records were mentioned in those circumstances head office ordered a preliminary enquiry which was conducted by Staff Officer, Grade II and having considered his report, head office directed - Held, case arose under proceedings in respect of an order passed by Company Law Board - Appointing four inspectors to investigate affairs of appellant company, on ground that the Board was of opinion that there were circumstances suggesting that business of appellant company was being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members or any other persons and that persons concerned in management of affairs of company having connection therewith were guilty of fraud, misfeasance and other misconduct towards company and its members - From observations of Shelat, J., in that decision, it appears that he was also inclined to take same view - Facts of instant case are however, different - It has to be emphasised that appellant was not charged for defrauding Bank - He was charged mainly for conduct which suggested that he acted improperly and in violation of principles on which sound banking business should be conducted - Charge against appellant was that he had acted in violation of procedure of Bank, he had disregarded all safeguards in-sanctioning overdrafts, encashing bills and his conduct had exposed bank to grave risks and that be had flagrantly violated bank rules and instruction with a view to cover up attempts to misappropriate banks money after defrauding bank - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :—Shri K. L. Tripathi, the appellant herein joined the State Bank of India in 1955. At the relevant time, he was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Deoria.

2. Certain complaints were received about his conduct from Gorakhpur Branch Manager, Shri R. S. Kapoor, Staff Officer Grade II, who reported to the Head Office on 5th May, 1974 that, from the informations given to him by some members of the staff of Deoria Branch, namely, Shri M. R. Sharma, Head Clerk, M. S. Gupta, Field Officer and from other enquiries made by him he found that the bills negotiated by the Gorakhpur Branch under a Revolving Letter of Credit No. 20/1 dated 21st March, 1974 established by the Deoria Branch an Gorakhpur Branch for Rs. 2 lakhs at a time subject to a maximum of Rupees 17 lakhs had remained unpaid to the extent of Rs. 12 lakhs and that the openers of the Letter of Credit, M/s. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal Jaiswal, Deoria were unable to meet their obligations. In the same letter, he also informed that Deoria Branch had opened another Revolving Letter of Credit No. 20/2 dated 3rd April, 1974 for Rs. 50,000 /- per day subject to a maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs and that because the clauses of the credit had not been drawn properly, the bills were not negotiated thereunder by his Branch, and were, instead, sent on collection basis. Certain other allegations giving the particulars of the bills and records were mentioned in those circumstances the head office ordered a preliminary enquiry which was conducted by Shri R. P. Srivastava, Staff Officer, Grade II and having considered his report, the head office directed Shri B. D. Sharma. Chief Manager to carry out investigation under the rules governing the services of the officers of the State Bank.

3. Shri Sharma conducted the investigation between 9th June to 23rd June, 1974 and in the course of investigation, he visited Deoria and Gorakhpur. On 9th September, 1974, charges were framed. The information Shri Sharma could gather was that M/s. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal Jaiswal, Station Road, Deoria was a sole proprietorship concern with Shri Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal as the sole proprietor. Their business was to deal in scrap iron which they purchased from Sugar Mills around Deoria and from other sources. The firm maintained a current account only with an average balance of Rs. 10,000/-. There was no opinion report on record with the Branch. It appeared that the firm had no experience in oil business. Shri Sharma enquired from Mr. Tripathi. From the report or Shri Sharma, it appears that in respect of all relevant entries upon which he has based his conclusion, he asked Shri Tripathi after giving him the gist of the relevant materials gathered from other person in the absence of the appellant and asked his opinion or explanation in respect of those. We have examined the report of Shri Sharma and find that at all stages in respect of all the matters mentioned in the report the appellant was associated with the preliminary investigation and his versions or explanations were sought for and recorded.

4. It is significant that in respect of charge (ii) - Letters of Credit No. 20/1 dated 21st March 1974 and No. 20/2 dated 3rd March, 1974, the petitioner stated as follows :-

"That the Revolving Letter of Credit No, 20/1 dt. the 21st March, 1974 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs "at a time" subject to a maximum of Rs. 17 lakhs was established by me after obtaining the permission of the Regional Manager over telephone. The other Letter of Credit No. 20/2 dated the 3rd April, 1974 for a sum not exceeding Rupess 50,000/- "per day" subject to a maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs was established in good faith which was within my power. In so far as compilation of a regular opinion report on the firm is concerned, I may submit that the required particulars had already been collected by the Branch Head Cashier and before issuing the aforesaid Letters of Credit, I had made my own assessment of the firms cre
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top