SWARAN LATA GHOSH versus H. K. BANERJEE AND ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 12-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

976 
SWARAN LATA GHOSH 
v. 
H. K. BANERJEE AND ANR. 
March 12, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Practice and Procedure-Chartered High Court-Judgment-Duty to 
give reasons. 
After the death of the appellant's husband who was an attorney-at-
law, the first respondent filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta 
High Court against the appellant and her minor son, for a decree for 
Rs. 15,000 and interest claiming that the amount was deposited with the 
appellant's husband for the purpose of investing it and that the appellant's 
husband agreed to pay interest at certain rates. 
The appellant filed a 
written statement denying the claim in its entirety. The first respondent 
produced extracts of bank accpunts to show that the money had passed 
but there was no documentary evidence supporting the case relating to 
the agreement between him and the appellant's husband. 
To prove his 
case and the terms of the deposit which according to him were orally 
agreed upon, the first respondent examined himself and three other wit~ 
nesses. 
The appellant appeared by counsel and the cross-examination on 
behalf of the appellant was elaborate and showed that the claim wa,s con-
tested fully and that the defence was not confined to the extent of the 
appellant's liability. 
The trial Judge gave a pe'rsonal decree against the 
appellant but did not frame any issues or record any reasons in support 
of his conclusion. 
In appeal under the 
Letters Patent, thou2h several 
grounds on the merits were raised in the memorandum of appeal, the 
appellate Bench also did not give any reasons but merely modified the 
decree by limiting it to the estate inherited by the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: Under 0. XLIX, r. 3(5), Civil Procedure Code, rr. 1 to' 8 
of O. XX do not apply to a Chartered High Court in the exercise of its 
ordinary or extraordinary original jurisdiction, and hence, a Judge of a 
Chartered High Court is not obliged to record a judgment giving reasons 
in accordance with- the provisions of 0. XX, rr. 4(2) and s.· But the 
High Court must exercise judicial discretion in exercising that powe'r, be· 
cause, the recording of reasons is intended to ensure that the decision was 
not the result of a whim or fancy but of a judicjal approach, that the 
adjudication was according to law and procedure e·stablished by law, and 
that when the judgment is subject to appeal, the .Appellate Court may 
have adequate material on which it may determine whethe~ the fac~ \~:e~e 
properly ascertained and t~e law has been co~rectly apph~d ~esulting ID 
a just decision. 
The privilege of not recording reasons IS mtended to 
apply where the action is undefended, wher~ the parties are not at iss~e 
on any substantial ~auer.~ in a summary trial w~ere. leav~ to ~efend is 
not granted, in making interlocutory orders or m disposing of formal 
proceedings. [979 F-H; 980 F-Hl 
In the present case, since there \Vas a contes~ _on m.erits, in the absenef 
of any documentary evidence in the hand-wntmg of the 
appellants 
husband, the burden of proving hi• claim lay on the J!rst respondent, and 
the oral testimony adduced by him had to be exammed m the context 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SWARAN LATA V, H. K. BANERJEE (Shah, J,) 
977 
of : (a) absence of correspondence relating to the transactions between 
the first respondent and the appellant's husband; (b) absence of books 
of account in support of the transaction; (c) improbability of such a 
transaction between an attorney and his tjlient; (d) absence of previous 
business o:r professional relationship between the 
first 
respondent 
and 
appellant's husband; (e) absence of vouchers supporting the alleged pay-
ment of interest, and similar weighty circumstances. In reaching his con· 
clusion, the trial Judge had to consider the probabilities and circumstances 
of the case and hence, there should have been a full record of the reasons 
for his conclusion.[980 A-E; 981 D-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 662 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order date<.! 
August 4, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Ori-
ginal Order No. 99 of 1963. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
S. C. Majumdar, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
Birendra Krishna Ghosh-hereinafter called 
"Ghosh-was practising as an attorney-at-law in the High 
Court of Calcutta. He died in August 1950. H. K. Ban

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