TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the District Forum, Hyderabad Mrs. Chinoy had alleged that the balance outstanding in her overdraft account with the Bank on 27th October, 1979 was only ₹ 14,131.57 but the Bank had sold her whole lot of shares of about 30 companies which were pledged by her with the Bank. The Bank credited her overdraft account with a sum of ₹ 36,000.00 only as sale proceeds of the shares. There was no necessity to sell the shares of all the 30 companies for liquidating the outstanding as on the date of sale the debit balance on that date could have been liquidated by sale of shares of few companies only and .thereby the Bank would have saved the remaining securities. The Bank has thus failed to act prudently while handling the shares/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and fraudulent actions of Cheating by the officials of the Bank while handling her pledged securities. (4) As in the original complaint the complainant, Mrs. Chinoy had not quantified her claim, the District Forum asked her to quantify the damages. She claimed ₹ 3,20,000.00 as damages etc. together with interest from the date of complaint till the date of final payment. This amount was arrived at by her by stating that if her shares worth ₹ 14,131.57 were removed (i.e. sold) from the bunch of shares, the balance number of shares could have been retained and today the market value of those remaining shares would be approximately ₹ 1,20,000.00 excluding bonus shares and interest. According to her the bonus shares and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the judgment in the criminal case has been appealed against and the appeal was pending before the Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad and as such the judgment of the Magistrate could not form the basis of the complaint. (7) It may be mentioned that while the complaint was pending with the State Commission the appeal in the criminal case was accepted on 25th May, 1990 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the conviction of sentence of the accused, Shri Digaria was set aside and he was acquitted of the offence under Section 420 under which the conviction had taken place. The other accused in the case was the Branch Manager of the Bank but he had already been acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. (8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase personally while the Bank was represented by a counsel. (10) Counsel for the Bank argued that the alleged deficiency in he tendering of 'service' was committed in November, 1979 and the complaint was filed in the beginning of 1990 and, therefore, it was clearly barred by limitation having been filed after more than a decade. He further argued that if the appellant-complainant takes the decision in the criminal case in which Mr. Digaria was convicted as the starting point of her cause of action for filing the complaint, the present complaint was premature because the Metropolitan Session Judge accepted the appeal of Mr. Digaria and acquitted him of the charge leveled against him and the appeal filed by the State against the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised one is bound to return what has been wrongly taken from her and which belongs to her. The relevant para of the judgment of the case reads as follows; There cannot be any dispute about the obligation or the amounts since the market committees have accounts of collection and are willing to disgorge the excess sums. Indeed, if they file suits within limitation period, decrees must follow. What the period of limitation is and whether Art. 226 will apply are most as is evident from the High Court Judgment, but we are not called upon to pronounce on either point in the view we take. Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the Dharma of the situation admits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the shares in one lot. The Bank could not have acted in contravention of her instructions and thus could not sell only few shares out of the lot for adjustment of the overdraft account. (16) The complainant's contention before us was that she had asked the Bank to sell the share in one lot because at that time it was represented to her by Mr. Digaria, an employee of the Bank, that the debit balance in her overdraft account was about ₹ 35,000.00 and as she had confidence in him she had asked the Bank to sell the shares in one lot and had she known that the debit balance in her account was only about ₹ 15,000.00 she would not have asked the Bank to sell her shares in one lot. This submission of the complainant is clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
