PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. versus ATMANAND SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 06-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
v.
ATMANAND SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2410 of 2020)
MAY 06, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Writ – Jurisdiction of – When the petition raises questions of
fact of a complex nature – Respondent no. 1 alleged that he had
taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Bank in 1984 – In 1990,
the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of
Rs.13,386/- –  In 1989, respondent no. 1 was granted two cheques
of Rs.5000/- each as Earthquake Relief Fund – The said two cheques
were deposited with Bank for encashment, however, the said amount
of cheques were transferred to the loan account and the same was
done without any authorisation – It was also alleged by respondent
no. 1 that he approached bank with Rs.14,93,000/- for issuance of
two bank drafts – However, the Bank transferred the said amount
to the loan account – Thereafter, respondent no. 1 approached the
District Magistrate – Respondent no.1 alleged that his basic
assertion was found correct and liability was accepted by the bank,
and it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990 – However, a
writ petition was filed by respondent no.1 when Bank refused to
honour the agreement – The Bank denied the allegation of transfer
of proceeds of two cheques of Rs.5000/- to loan account and also
denied the allegation of deposit of Rs.14,93,000/- by respondent
no. 1 – The Bank explicitly denied the genuineness and existence
of the documents annexed to the writ petition and asserted the same
as forged, fabricated and manufactured documents – The Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition – Aggrieved, the
Bank filed LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court which
was dismissed – On appeal, held: The Bank had categorically denied
the case set up by the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition in toto;
and moreso the stand taken by the Bank could be substantiated on
the preponderance of probabilities – In other words, the case set
up by the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition is neither an admitted
position nor it is possible to even remotely suggest that it is
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 674
674
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
675
indisputable, so as to bind the Bank on that basis – Also, the District
Magistrate in the affidavit clearly denied the existence of the stated
proceedings for want of contemporaneous official record in that
regard – This aspect was not taken into account by the High Court
– From the narration of facts, it is clear that it would involve security
of complex matters and issues including about the existence of the
very agreement, which is the foundational evidence for seeking relief
as prayed in writ petition – The High Court committed manifest
error in disregarding the core jurisdictional issue that the matter on
hand involved complex factual aspects, which could not be
adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction – The High Court should
have relegated the parties to other alternative remedy as may be
permissible in law – Thus, the impugned decisions of the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment of the single Judge of the High
Court has completely glossed over the crucial aspects and the
writ petition has been disposed of in a very casual manner. The
Division Bench of the High Court committed the same error in
upholding the decision of the single Judge. The Division Bench
has not even analysed the efficacy of the affidavits filed in support
of the stand taken by the appellant-Bank during the pendency of
the LPA. It merely reiterates the view taken by the Single Judge
in just two short paragraphs. It has not analysed the efficacy of
the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 04 (DW1) PNB/1989-90, as
well as, the certified copy of the proceedings filed in appeal before
it, in the context of affidavits of Bank officials and report of the
District Magistrate. The Division Bench was also misled by the
voluminous documents relied upon by the respondent No. 1 and
assumed that the same could not be a figment of imagination or a
piece of fiction. [Para 15][687-G-H; 688-A-B]
2. Even if the impugned judgments were to be read as a
whole, there is no analysis of the relevant documents and in
particular, the stand taken by the appellant-Bank expressly
denying the existence of the stated agreement and genuineness
thereof, which plea was reinforced from the affidavits of the
concerned Bank officials 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.