Canara Bank vs. M/S Soma Engineering

Facts

The Petitioner, Canara Bank, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the District Judge (COMM.)-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Trial Court's order directed the Chairperson of Canara Bank to make an enquiry into facts presented in the order. The Petitioner bank stated that a financial facility of Rs. 8 lakhs was initially issued to the erstwhile proprietor of the Respondent, late Shri Sukanto Bank, on 02.02.2010. Late Shri Sukanto Bank expired on 10.09.2017. Prior to his death, on 04.08.2017, he issued a letter of authority to his son, Mr. Babu Bank (current proprietor), to operate the facility. The Petitioner bank also presented a letter dated 28.11.2017 from the daughter of late Shri Sukanto Bank, confirming she had no interest in the assets, including the financial facility, and that Shri Babu Bank was the sole legal heir. The Petitioner sought liberty to place these documents before the Trial Court to respond to the enquiry and satisfy the court regarding the financial transactions.

Held

The High Court decided to grant liberty to the Petitioner (Canara Bank) to place the documents filed with the petition before the Trial Court. The Court directed the Trial Court to consider these documents and the Petitioner's submissions to satisfy itself regarding the questions framed in its order dated 12.07.2023. This liberty is in addition to, and not in derogation of, the enquiry being independently carried out by the Chairperson of Canara Bank. The Court requested the Trial Court to consider the documents and submissions without being influenced by its prior observations in the 12.07.2023 order. The Court also noted that an opportunity would be granted to the Respondent to respond to the newly placed documents. The Trial Court was further requested to grant an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and issue appropriate directions after considering all submissions and documents. The petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific GST provisions were discussed or relied upon in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner (Canara Bank) should be granted liberty to place additional documents before the Trial Court to satisfy it regarding the facts of financial transactions, in response to the enquiry initiated by the Trial Court? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the documents in its possession, including a letter of authority from the deceased proprietor to his son and a confirmation letter from the deceased's daughter, demonstrate the legitimate operation of the financial facility by the current proprietor. These documents are crucial to respond to the Trial Court's enquiry and to prevent adverse inferences against the plaintiff or its officials. The Petitioner sought an opportunity to present these documents to the Trial Court, in addition to an ongoing internal enquiry by the Chairperson. Revenue/State's Arguments: None recorded.