AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.07.2010 in W.P
(C) No. 18043 of 2006, the unsuccessful Petitioner therein preferred the instant appeal.
The Appellant has maintained a Savings Bank account with the 1st Respondent branch of State of Bank of India,the 2nd Respondent. It appears from the facts that an amount of `88,000/- was withdrawn from the Appellant''s account utilising two cheques which are allegedly forged. On coming to know of such withdrawal, the Appellant complained to the Bank and also to the Police. A criminal case came to be registered against the driver of the Appellant on the suspicion that he was responsible for the said forgery. The criminal case against the driver is still pending.
In the background of the abovementioned facts, the Appellantapproached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition with the prayers as follows: WA No. 1982 of 2010
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P6 order of the bank denying its liability for payment and to wait till conviction of the accused.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order, directing the bank to make payment of Rs. 88,000/- with interests and cost for police complaint and the loss sustained case amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.
(c) Direct the Banking Ombudsman to issue direction to the bank to pay the amount of Rs. 88,000/- with interest and damages of Rs. 10,000/-.
(d) Grant such other reliefs as and when prayed for.
(e) Award cost of this petition.
By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the Appellant herein should approach appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance. Hence the appeal. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
The question as to whether the cheques were signed by the Petitioner or by somebodyelse is a matter for evidence. Of course, if the criminal case had ended in a conclusion as to who signed the cheque, this Court may have been able to consider the claim of the Petitioner. But as on today, it cannot be conclusively held either way without taking evidence. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Petitioner should approach a forum where the Petitioner can adduce evidence in support of the contentions of the Petitioner. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed.
Though we are in total agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge, we are of the opinion that the observations made in the above extracted portion of the judgment are neither necessary for the disposal of the writ petition nor in our opinion they reflect the true legal position.
Be that as it may, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. It is open to the Appellant to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance and as and when such an approach is made by the Appellant, his case would be examined without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment under appeal.
The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage.