V.P. Sharma vs Syndicate Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

This appeal was filed against the order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the Tribunal below. The impugned order was passed on Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2014 filed by the appellant before the Tribunal below. Prayer in the application was to hold an inquiry against the concerned officials of the Bank who had furnished false information before the Tribunal below and for not obeying the orders of the Tribunal. The prayer for inquiry was made on the ground that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to the Bank in full and final settlement of the dues for which the Bank had also issued a no dues certificate in favour of the appellant. The Bank had also moved an application before the Tribunal below for releasing the title deed of the mortgaged property so that it could be handed over to the appellant, When, ultimately, the title deed was not handed over, this miscellaneous application was filed making a grievance that it was falsely stated in the application that the title deed was lying with the Tribunal and be returned to the Bank. As a matter of fact, the Bank had lost this title deed from its custody. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to conclude that the certified copy of the lease deed was in possession the applicant Bank as could be made out from the advertisement issued in 'The Statesman' newspaper dated 10.6.2004 stating that the original title deed had been lost from the Bank and general public had been warned not to deal with the said lease deed. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the view that no inquiry could be conducted under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant Bank was negligent in not keeping the original record intact till it was handed over to the entitled person, and, accordingly, disposed of the application with a direction to the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with certified copy of the lease deed. The Bank was also directed to file an affidavit that it or its any branch would not misuse the original lease deed in future from the date when the original title deeds were handed over by the defendants to the Bank. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

This appeal was disposed of on the basis of an agreement reached between the appellant and the respondent Syndicate Bank. On the basis of this agreement the order dated 6.12.2010 was passed by the tribunal and it is as under:

"Present: Mr. H.K. Nahta, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. B.S. Nagar, Advocate for Respondent

Counsel for the parties heard. They have agreed that the OTS already entered between the parties may be withdrawn. It is also agreed that the appellant would return the compensation received from the various Forums with interest and the Bank will return Rs. 20 lakh with interest to the appellant within two months.

In the light of this discussion and as agreed, the Bank will take action against those persons who are responsible for the loss of the documents belonging to the appellant. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 3rd January, 2011 who will proceed further in the matter. The Bank is directed to submit the report regarding action taken by it against the Bankers at fault within two months from today and file its report before the learned DRT.

Appeal stands disposed of."

The Bank did not accept this order and moved an application before this Tribunal for review of this order on the ground that the Counsel representing the Bank was not authorized to enter into the agreement. The Tribunal, thereafter issued notice on this application The Tribunal, however, did not find this to be a valid reason to review the order dated 6.12.2010.

The case still did not see its end. The Bank moved another application, this time seeking review of the order dated 6.12.2010 on a different ground. It was pleaded that Mr. B.S. Nagar appearing for the Bank was not authorized to make statement on behalf of the Bank. This was nothing but a twist given to already raised plea. Still, it was entertained. Earlier it was stated that Mr. B.S. Nagar was not competent to enter into a compromise but now the review was sought on the ground that the Bank had not authorized Mr. B.S. Nagar to enter into the compromise. This Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, again dismissed the review application on 26.3.2012.

Bank still did not feel satisfied with this order, and filed a Writ Petition to challenge the said order. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the orders dated 26.3.2012, 6.12.2010 and 22.9.2011 passed by this Tribunal and remitted the matter back to this Tribunal for hearing the parties on the merit of the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below.

A sincere effort thereafter has been made to see if the issue could be amicably settled. The Bank at some stage was apprised of it lapse as it is a case of clear-cut negligence in losing the title deed by the respondent Bank. The case was adjourned on more than one occasion to see if the Bank was willing to get another title deed made in the name of the appellant so that the issue could be resolved. Ultimately, the efforts failed when a statement was made before this Tribunal that the Bank was not prepared to incur the expenses for getting a duplicate title deed of the property made as the expenses involved are huge. Strangely, the Counsel did not even divulge the expenses which the Bank was not ready to incur. The parties, thereafter, have been heard on merit.

Inviting my attention to the application moved by the Bank, Mr. Bhandari, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the application was supported by an affidavit which contained false submission. As per the Counsel, an impression was conveyed that the title deed was lying with the Tribunal below whereas factually the title deed had never been in possession of the Tribunal. To support that the title deed was lost from the possession of the Bank, Counsel for the appellant referred to the complaint lodged by the Bank with the police where it was clearly admitted and stated that the title deed had been lost by the Bank. Mr. Bhandari would also point out to the different stands taken by the Bank at different stages. At one stage it was stated that the title deed might have been lost while the branch was being shifted from one place to another.

The Counsel for the Bank, however, has made detailed reference to the application filed by the appellant to urge that no averment was made in the application to disclose as to what offence had been committed and how and why there was any need to hold an inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Counsel has also referred to the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. to urge that except for baldly stating that the Bank had committed perjury in moving the application, nothing had been shown from the application for which inquiry should be made.

I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. The prayer made in the application was to hold an inquiry for lodging a complaint so as to punish the Bank and the concerned officials for furnishing false information and for not obeying the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal below, in my view, should have considered this prayer made in the application to see if any case was made out for accepting the plea. The application accordingly should have been decided and if, on the other hand, the Tribunal was of the view that no case was made out for holding inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. as no offences for which the inquiry was to be held was made out, it could have rejected the prayer made in the application. In my view, the Tribunal below was not justified in disposing this application by awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which was not even prayed for. The Tribunal could either have allowed the prayer made in the application or could have rejected the same. The scope of Section 340, Cr.P.C. can very well be made out from the said section itself. If it appears that somebody is guilty of offences as given in Section 195(1)(b), then the Tribunal or the Court is competent to hold an inquiry in case such an offence alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. In this background, the Tribunal may not have been justified in simply observing that there was no need for inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. while disposing of the application. If for any reason it was of the view that no offence is made out and there would not be any need to hold inquiry, the reasons, as may be relevant, should have recorded while deciding the prayer made in the application. In view of this, it may not be possible to sustain impugned order and, the same is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal below for deciding the application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appellant shall be obliged to refund the sum of Rs. 10,000/- received from the Bank in case the same is so demanded by the Bank.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and be also sent to the Tribunal below forthwith.