Punjab National Bank vs Rohan Securities on 11 July, 2026

July 15, 2026

Delhi District Court

Punjab National Bank vs Rohan Securities on 11 July, 2026

                In The Court of Ms. Shuchi Laler,
                 District Judge02, East District,
                    Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 151/2020
CNR No. DLET010054862016
In the matter of :

Punjab National Bank:
a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having
its head office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New
Delhi and amongst others a Branch Office at Rani Bagh, Delhi.
                                           .....Plaintiff.
                                Versus
1. M/s Rohan Securities,
22, Palika Bazar,
Rohtak.
Through: its Proprietor Shri Raman Chawla.

2. Shri Raman Chawla,                                                   SHUCHI
                                                                        LALER
Proprietor of M/s Rohan Securities,
22, Palika Bazar, Rohtak.
                                                                        Digitally
                                                                        signed by
3. Sh. B.K. Kalra (Now Deceased and abated).                            SHUCHI
                                                                        LALER
S/o Shri R.P. Kalra,                                                    Date:
                                                                        2026.07.11
R/o H.No. 21/625, Jagdish Colony, Rohtak.                               17:02:20
                                                                        +0530
Also At
F5/17, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi110051.
                                          .....Defendants.

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
                                                      Page No.1 of 49
 Date of Institution                          : 13.10.1999
Date of Reserving Judgment                   : 04.05.2026
Date of Decision                             : 11.07.2026


                                     JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff Bank has sought recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,02,83,689/ along with pendente lite and future interest
from the defendants on the ground that they committed fraud
by way of manipulation in current account No. 3798, opened
by defendant No.2, in the name of defendant No.1/sole
proprietorship concern, in collusion with the bank
employee/defendant No.3, resulting in wrongful loss to the
bank.

     PLAINT:                                                                           SHUCHI
                                                                                        LALER

2. Brief facts, of the case, as averred by the plaintiff,
relevant, for the disposal, of the present suit, are that the
plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Digitally
signed by
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

SPONSORED

Undertakings) Act, 1970, and the present suit was filed 2026.07.11
17:02:40
+0530
through its General Power of Attorney Sh. B.M. Aggarwal. It
is averred that the defendant No.1 is the sole proprietorship
CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.2 of 49
concern of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 had opened a
current account bearing No. 3798 on 07.02.1997 in the name
of defendant No.1 with the plaintiff Bank at its Branch Office
Rani Bagh, Delhi, and operated the same from time to time
after getting cheque books issued and the relevant cheque
books bearing No. 056201056250 & 944951945000, both
dated 06.02.1997 and 13.09.1997 respectively. The
defendants kept on operating the aforesaid account with the
plaintiff bank and the cheques issued by the defendants were
presented in clearing and were honoured by the plaintiff bank
from time to time. The defendant No.3 is an employee of the
plaintiff Bank, who was posted as Special Assistant in
Branch Office Rani Bagh, Delhi, from 02.07.1992 to
06.03.1998. During the routine inspection of the aforesaid
SHUCHI
branch office of the plaintiff Bank at Rani Bagh, Delhi, it was LALER

found on 06.03.1998 that there had been a large scale Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
irregularities in several accounts of the said branch office and LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:02:32
the account No. 3798, in the name of the defendant No.1, was +0530

one of those.

3. The plaintiff bank has alleged that the above account was

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.3 of 49
being operated by the defendant No.2 in the name of the
defendant No.1 and during April, 1997 to February, 1998,
defendants with intent to defraud the plaintiff bank conspired
with each other and adopted the following modus operandi
for the said purpose:

(a) By giving credit through transfer voucher to the party
and debiting the ODD account of the plaintiff bank without
any supporting documents viz cheque, draft etc.;

(b) By giving credit, without instrument on the basis of
mere clearing voucher and debiting the amount as mentioned
therein to the imprest clearing account of the plaintiff bank;

(c) By destroying the cheques issued by the account
holders received by the plaintiff bank in inward clearing and
SHUCHI
debiting the cheque amount to clearing imprest/suspense LALER

clearing account of the plaintiff bank instead of debiting the
same to the account of the party and thereby not affecting the Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
balance of the account of the account holder on which the LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
cheques were drawn. 17:02:47
+0530

4. The plaintiff Bank has set out in detail, in para No.6 to 34
of the plaint, the banking transactions/credit limits availed by

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.4 of 49
defendants No.1 and 2, allegedly resulting in wrongful
siphoning of Rs.74,20,230.28. The said specific transactions
are mentioned herein below:
4.1 On 10.04.1997, the defendant No.2, as the
proprietor of defendant No.1, in connivance with defendant
No.3, got three credit clearing vouchers of Rs.2,48,700/;
Rs.2,41,925/ and Rs.85,000/ prepared without any
supporting instrument and got the said amount credited in the
current account No.3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of
imprest clearing account of the plaintiff bank. The defendant
No.2 issued a cheque bearing No. 056216, dated 03.04.1997
for Rs.4,90,625/ to and in favour of one Indus Portfolio
Private Ltd against aforesaid credit and the said cheque was
duly paid on 11.04.1997 by the plaintiff bank in clearing. SHUCHI
LALER

4.2. On 15.04.1997, defendant No.2, being the
proprietor of defendant no.1, withdrew in cash the sum of Digitally
signed by
Rs.85,000/ through cheque No. 056220 from the said SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
account. 17:02:54
+0530

4.3. On 28.05.1997, the defendant No.2, in connivance
with defendant No.3, got two cheques bearing Nos. 056228
and 056229 for Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ issued by the

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.5 of 49
defendant No.1 destroyed when the said cheques were
received by the plaintiff Bank in inward clearing from
Corporation Bank, Delhi, and got the said cheque amount
debited to the imprest account of the plaintiff Bank instead of
debiting the same to the account of the defendant No.1, thus,
not affecting the account of the defendant No.1.
4.4. On 29.05.1997, defendant No.2, as the proprietor
of defendant No.1, in connivance with defendant No.3 got a
credit clearing voucher of Rs.1,50,000/ prepared without any
supporting instrument and got the said amount credited in the
current account No. 3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit
of imprest clearing of the plaintiff Bank. The defendant No.2
issued a cheque bearing No. 056230, dated 30.05.1997 for
Rs.1,50,000/ to and in favour of one Indus Portfolio Private
Limited and the said cheque amount was duly paid on SHUCHI
LALER
03.06.1997 by plaintiff bank in clearing.
4.5. On 19.06.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
Digitally
signed by
with defendant no.3 got two credit clearing vouchers of SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

Rs.1,50,000/ each totaling a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ prepared 2026.07.11
17:03:02
+0530
without any supporting instrument and got the said amount
credited in the current account No. 3798 of the defendant

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.6 of 49
No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing of the plaintiff bank.
The defendant No.2 got a draft for Rs.1,50,000/, dated
21.06.1997, issued in favour of defendant No.1 on
21.06.1997 and issued a cheque bearing No. 056231 for
Rs.15,000/, dated 06.06.1997 in favour of one Jagdish Singh
Sherawat against aforesaid credits and the said cheque was
duly paid on 26.06.1997.

4.6. On 30.06.1997, defendant No.2 in connivance of
defendant No.3 got a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ transferred to
current account No. 3827 of one M/s Sugam Investments.
4.7. On 03.07.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3, got a cheque bearing No. 056236 for
Rs.3,00,000/ issued by defendant No.1 destroyed when the
said cheque was received by the plaintiff bank in inward
clearing from Bank of America, Delhi and got the said SHUCHI
LALER

cheque amount debited to the imprest account of the plaintiff
bank instead of debiting the same to the account of the Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
defendant No.1, thus, not affecting the account of the Date:

2026.07.11
17:03:11
defendant No.1. +0530

4.8. On 24.07.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a credit clearing voucher of

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.7 of 49
Rs.2,50,000/ prepared without any supporting instrument
and got the said amount credited in the current account No.
3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of imprest account of
the plaintiff bank.

4.9. The defendant No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.
056225, dated 22.07.1997 for Rs.1,00,000/ in favour of one
Virender Singh Nagpal. The defendant No.2 issued a cheque
No. 056240, dated 25.07.1997 for Rs.50,000/ favouring self
which was encashed by defendant No.3 on 26.07.1997 and
also got a draft issued for Rs.1,35,000/, dated 26.07.1997 in
favour of defendant No.1 payable at Rohtak Branch of the
plaintiff Bank. The said cheque and draft were duly paid by
the plaintiff bank.

4.10. On 30.07.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
SHUCHI
LALER
with defendant No.3 got a credit clearing voucher of
Rs.3,00,000/ prepared without any supporting instrument
Digitally
and got the said amount credited in the current account No. signed by
SHUCHI
LALER

3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing of Date:

2026.07.11
17:03:17
+0530
the plaintiff Bank.

4.11. On 13.08.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ transferred to

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.8 of 49
the S.F. Account No. 19099 of Sudhir Kalra and Ritu Kalra
by two transfer vouchers of Rs.1,50,000/ each.
4.12. On 06.09.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got two cheques bearing Nos. 056243
and 056244 for Rs.4,00,000/ each totalling a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/ issued by defendant No.1 destroyed when the
said cheques were received by the plaintiff Bank in inward
clearing from Bank of America, Delhi, and got the said
cheques amounts debited to the imprest account of the
Plaintiff Bank instead of debiting the same to the account of
the defendant No.1.

4.13. On 12.09.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got three credit transfer vouchers of
Rs.1,38,000/, Rs.1,40,000/ and Rs.1,37,000/ prepared
SHUCHI
without any supporting instrument and got the said amounts LALER

credited in the current account No. 3798 of the defendant
No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing account of the Plaintiff Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
Bank. LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
4.14. The defendant No.2 issued two cheques bearing 17:03:23
+0530
Nos. 056245 and 056246, both dated 11.09.1997 for
Rs.2,00,000/ each, totalling a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in favour

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.9 of 49
of M/s Indus Portfolio Private Ltd., against aforesaid credit
and the said cheques were duly paid on 13.09.1997 by
plaintiff Bank in clearing.

4.15. On 20.09.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got two transfer credit vouchers of
Rs.2,00,000/ each, totalling a sum of Rs.4,00,000/, prepared
without any supporting instrument and got the said amount
credited in the current account No.3798 of the defendant
No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing account of the Plaintiff
Bank.

4.16. The defendant No.2 issued two cheques bearing
Nos. 056247 and 056248, both dated 19.09.1997 for
Rs.2,00,000/ each and totalling a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in
favour of M/s Indus Portfolio Pvt. Ltd against aforesaid SHUCHI
LALER
credit and the said cheques were duly paid on 20.09.1997 by
plaintiff Bank in clearing.

Digitally
signed by
4.17. On 18.10.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

with defendant No.3 got a credit voucher of Rs.70,000/ 2026.07.11
17:03:30
+0530
prepared without any supporting instrument and got the said
amount credited in the current account No.3798 of the
defendant No.1 to the debit of ODD head and on the same

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.10 of 49
date got a sum of Rs.80,000/ transferred to the S.F. Account
No. 19222 of R.P. Kalra and B.K. Kalra, defendant No.3.
4.18. On 29.10.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a cheque bearing Nos.944951 for
Rs.1,79,976/ issued by defendant No.1 destroyed when the
said cheque was received by the plaintiff Bank in inward
clearing from Honk Kong Bank, New Delhi and got the said
cheque amount debited to the imprest account of the plaintiff
Bank instead of debiting the cheque amount to the account of
the defendant No.1.

4.19. On 29.11.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got two credit clearing vouchers of
Rs.4,00,000/ each, totalling a sum of Rs.8,00,000/ prepared SHUCHI
LALER
without any supporting instrument and got the said amount
credited in the current account No.3798 of the defendant Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing account of the Plaintiff LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
Bank. 17:03:36
+0530

4.20. The defendant No.2 issued two cheques bearing
No. 944954 and 944955, dated 27.11.1997 and 02.12.1997
for Rs.30,000/ and Rs.2,000/ respectively in favour of
Jagdish Chander Bhatia and M/s Shipli Computers against

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.11 of 49
the aforesaid credit and the said cheques were duly paid on
02.12.1997 and 03.12.1997 respectively by plaintiff Bank in
clearing.

4.21. The defendant No.2 again issued two cheques
bearing Nos. 944956 and 944957, both dated 02.12.1997, for
Rs.2,50,000/ each in favour of M/s Indus Portfolio Private
Limited against the aforesaid credit and the said cheques
were duly paid on 03.12.1997 by plaintiff bank in clearing.
4.22. On 08.12.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got two credit clearing vouchers of
Rs.3,75,000/ and Rs.4,00,000/ prepared without any
supporting instrument and got the said amount credited in the
current account No. 3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit
SHUCHI
of imprest clearing account of the Plaintiff Bank. LALER
4.23. On 13.12.1997, the defendant No.2 as the
proprietor of defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant
Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
No.3 got a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ transferred to S.F. Account Date:

2026.07.11
17:03:47
No. 19218 of Nagesh Kumar Nagpal. Again on 13.12.1997, +0530

the defendant No.2 in connivance with defendant No.3 got a
sum of Rs.25,000/ transferred to S.F. Account No. 19222 of
R.P. Kalra and B.K. Kalra, defendant No.3. Thereafter, on

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.12 of 49
13.12.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance with defendant
No.3 got issued two pay order No. 1592/97 and 1593/97,
favouring M/s Sumangal & Co. for Rs.2,00,000/ each.
4.24. On 17.12.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
of defendant No.3 got issued TPO No.3/97, drawn on Branch
Office, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, of the plaintiff Bank, favouring
M/s Pyush and Co. for Rs.1,50,000/.
4.25. On 18.12.1997, the defendant No.2 in connivance
of defendant No.3 got two sums of Rs.25,000/ and
Rs.15,000/ transferred to S.F. Account No. 24590 of Vinay
Kumar and Hitesh Kumar.

4.26. On 15.01.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got two credit clearing vouchers of
SHUCHI
Rs.4,50,000/ each prepared without any supporting LALER

instrument and got the said amount credited in the current
account No.3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
imprest clearing account of the plaintiff Bank. LALER
Date:

2026.07.11

4.27. On 16.01.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
17:03:54
+0530

of defendant No.3 got two pay orders No. 82/98 and 83/98 of
Rs.4,00,000/ each issued in favour of M/s Allied Financial
Services Pvt. Ltd and on the same date, defendant No.2

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.13 of 49
issued a cheque bearing No. 944961 for Rs.22,630/ in favour
of one Gaurav Lohia which was encashed on 16.01.1998.
4.28. On 19.01.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3. got a cash order of Rs.90,000/, dated
19.01.1998 issued to and in favour of M/s Sumangal & Co.

On 31.01.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance with
defendant No.3 got a cheque bearing Nos. 944964 for
Rs.2,28,436.78 issued by defendant No.1 destroyed when the
said cheque was received by the plaintiff Bank in inward
clearing from Bank of America, New Delhi, and got the said
cheque amount debited to the suspense clearing account of
the plaintiff Bank.

4.29. On 02.02.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance SHUCHI
LALER
with defendant No.3 got a credit clearing voucher of
Rs.2,30,000/ prepared without any supporting instrument Digitally
signed by
and got the said amount credited in the current account No. SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of imprest clearing 2026.07.11
17:04:01
+0530

account of the plaintiff Bank.

4.30. On 06.02.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a pay order No. 171/98 of
Rs.2,00,000/ prepared in favour of M/s Sumangal & Co and

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.14 of 49
the said pay order was duly paid by plaintiff Bank in
clearing.

4.31. On 14.02.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a cheque bearing Nos. 944965 for
Rs.2,50,000/ issued by defendant No.1 destroyed when the
said cheque was received by the plaintiff Bank in inward
clearing from HDFC, Delhi, and got the said cheque amount
debited to the imprest account of the plaintiff Bank instead of
debiting the cheque amount to the account of the defendant
No.1.

4.32. On 17.02.1998, the defendant No.2 in connivance
with defendant No.3 got a credit clearing voucher of
Rs.2,50,000/ prepared without any supporting instrument
SHUCHI
and got the said amount credited in the current account LALER

No.3798 of the defendant No.1 to the debit of imprest
clearing account of the plaintiff Bank and then on 20.02.1998 Digitally
signed by
got the said sum of Rs.2,50,000/ transferred to current SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
account No.3921 of one M/s Vaibhav Shares Private Limited. 17:04:07
+0530

5. Hence, it is alleged that in the aforesaid manner, during
the period from April, 1997 to February, 1998, the defendant

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.15 of 49
No.2 as the proprietor of defendant No.1 in connivance with
defendant No.3 got credited a total amount of
Rs.74,24,037.78 in the current account No. 3798 on different
dates as detailed above, and as such the defendants duped the
plaintiff bank and made wrongful gain to themselves.
Consequently, the defendants are jointly and severally liable
to refund the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff bank along
with interest thereupon and other charges.

6. The plaintiff Bank has further averred that at the relevant
time, the defendant No.3, being posted at Branch Office, Rani
Bagh, Delhi, had an access to the account books, documents
and other materials of the plaintiff bank, and as such the
SHUCHI
defendant No.3 managed to remove and destroy some of the LALER

records. However, from the lists of the clearing house, the
plaintiff Bank has been able to discover/detect that the Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
cheques in question pertained to and were from the cheque LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:04:13

books issued to the defendant No.1 in respect of its current +0530

account No.3798.

7. An FIR bearing No. 144/98 was lodged by the plaintiff

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.16 of 49
Bank on 10.03.1998 against the defendants under Sections
406/409/420/468/471/477A/120B IPC with PS Saraswati
Vihar, Delhi. A legal notice, dated 10.02.1999 was duly
served upon the defendants, however, they failed to make the
payment. Consequently, the plaintiff Bank claims that it is
entitled to recover the amount overdrawn by the defendants
to the tune of Rs.74,20,232.28, besides a sum of
Rs.28,63,456.72 towards interest up to 21.09.1999, totalling
to Rs.1,02,83,689. Hence, the present suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENTS:

8. The defendants No.1 and 2, in their joint written
statement, have raised preliminary objections such as the suit SHUCHI
LALER
has not been signed, verified and instituted by a duly
authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff Bank; the suit is Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
barred by limitation; the suit is bad for nonjoinder and mis LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
joinder of parties and the suit is based on unauthorized and 17:04:20
+0530

unilateral entries in the statement of account. It is claimed
that defendant No.1, was a subbroker and was trading on
behalf of its customers on commission and defendant No.3,
was one of the customers, who was operating his own

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.17 of 49
account and was also operating the account of 16 other
customers, who were friends and relatives of defendant No.3.
The defendants have claimed that they had deposited
Rs.6,23,334/ in cash and Rs.11,28,622/ by cheques from
time to time. They denied all allegations of fraud, conspiracy,
forged vouchers, destruction of cheques, or unauthorized
credits and have alleged that plaintiff Bank’s officials
themselves illegally and unilaterally operated the defendants’
account, resulting in the disputed transactions. Further, the
defendants stated that the bank has filed the present suit only
to cover up the negligence and misconduct of its own
employees. It is further averred that all the cheques issued by
the defendants were against lawful credit balances in their
account. Defendants No. 1 & 2 denied having any dealings
SHUCHI
with M/s Sugam Investments or receiving any illegal benefit LALER

from the alleged transactions.

Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER

9. A separate Written Statement was filed on behalf of Date:

2026.07.11
17:04:26
defendant No. 3 wherein he has taken preliminary objections +0530

such as the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean
hands; suit is filed on false and frivolous allegations, which

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.18 of 49
are subject matter of criminal proceedings; no cause of action
exists against him, as there was no contractual relationship
(privity of contract) between him and the plaintiff bank;
Present suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by
Order II Rule 2 CPC and plaint discloses no cause of action.
Defendant No. 3 denied that he had connived with defendants
No.1 and 2 and had got fake credit vouchers prepared. He
claimed that all credits were entered only after
deposits/intimation received from defendant No. 1 and that
the disputed cheques were issued against lawful credit
balances. He maintained that the trading accounts had
sufficient debit balances, and the entries made in the accounts
were genuine and according to normal banking practice.
During the pendency of the instant suit, defendant No.3
expired and the application of the plaintiff Bank under Order
SHUCHI
XXII Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the abatement was LALER
dismissed by Ld. Predecessor on 14.12.2018.

                                                                                     Digitally
                                                                                     signed by
                                                                                     SHUCHI
    REPLICATION:                                                                    LALER
                                                                                     Date:
                                                                                     2026.07.11
10.       The plaintiff Bank has preferred to file replications,                     17:04:32
                                                                                     +0530

wherein it has denied the allegations to the contrary and has

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.19 of 49
reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.

ISSUES:

11. Upon completion of pleadings, vide order, dated
06.11.2006, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the suit? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material
facts? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure? OPD.

7. Whether there is no privity of contract between the
plaintiff and defendant No.2, B.K. Kalra, regarding
transaction in dispute in respect of the account in question?

SHUCHI
OPD. LALER

8. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized
person? OPP. Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? If Date:

2026.07.11
17:04:38
so, to what amount? OPP. +0530

10. Whether the suit is based on unauthorized and
unilateral entries in statement of account? If so to what

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.20 of 49
effect? OPD.

11. Relief.

12. When the matter was at the stage of judgement, Ld.
Predecessor observed on 28.06.2025 that Issues No.4, 5 and 6
were missing and clarification was sought from Ld. Counsels
for the parties. On 17.09.2025, Ld. Counsels for the parties
had filed the order dated 06.11.2006 as available on the
website of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and with their consent,
it was observed that the order dated 06.11.2006 as uploaded
on the website of Hon’ble Delhi High Court be read in the
instant matter instead of order dated 06.11.2006, which is on
SHUCHI
record. Order dated 06.11.2006 as available on the website of LALER
Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under:
“On the pleadings of the parties, following issues are Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
framed: LALER
Date:

2026.07.11

1. Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to 17:04:44
+0530

entertain the suit? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material
facts? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.21 of 49
Code of Civil Procedure? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary
parties? OPD.

6. Whether the suit discloses no cause of action? OPD.

7. Whether there is no privity of contract between the
plaintiff and defendant No.2, B.K. Kalra, regarding
transaction in dispute in respect of the account in question?
OPD.

8. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized
person? OPP.

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? If SHUCHI
LALER
so, to what amount? OPP.

10. Whether the suit is based on unauthorized and Digitally
signed by
unilateral entries in statement of account? If so to what SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

    effect? OPD.                                                             2026.07.11
                                                                             17:04:51
                                                                             +0530
          11. Relief.


    EVIDENCE:

13. The plaintiff filed a list of witnesses dated 20.11.2006
citing nine witnesses, however, examined only four

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.22 of 49
witnesses.

14. PW1: Sh. U.S. Ranga (Publication Relation Inspector,
Nirman Vihar Post Office) proved his authorization letter as
Ex.PW1/1 and deposed that the summoned record has been
weeded out as per routine schedule. He proved the certificate
in this regard as Ex.PW1/2. No crossexamination of this
witness was conducted on behalf of the defendants.

15. PW2: Sh. J.B. Gupta (Sr. Manager, Plaintiff Bank)
tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW2/A and relied
upon several documents which are as under:

1. The specimen signatures Card as Ex.PW2/1. SHUCHI
LALER

2. The account opening form as Ex.PW2/2.

3. The cheque book issue register of the relevant period as Ex.PW2/3.

4. The certified copies of the original credit vouchers bearing signature Digitally
signed by
of the defendant No.3 as Ex.PW2/4 to Ex.PW2/6. SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

5. The certified copy of the original cheque bearing No.056216 as 2026.07.11
17:04:58
Ex.PW2/8. +0530

6. Certified copy of the cheque No. 056220 as Ex.PW2/9.

7. Certified copies of the original credit vouchers bearing signatures of
defendant No.3 as Ex.PW2/11 and Ex.PW2/12.

8. Certified copies of the cheques bearing No. 056235 and 056231 as

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.23 of 49
Ex.PW2/13 and Ex.PW1/14 and the transfer voucher whereby a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ was transferred to the account No. 3827 of M/s Sugam
Investments as Ex.PW2/15.

9. Credit clearing voucher of Rs.1,50,000/ and credited in the current
account No. 3798 of defendant No.1 as Ex.PW2/17.

10. Certified copy of the cheque No. 056225, dated 22.07.1997 for
Rs.1,00,000/ as Ex.PW2/18.

11. Certified copy of the cheque No. 056240, dated 25.07.97 for a sum of
Rs.50,000/ as Ex.PW2/19, the request for issue of a draft as Ex.PW2/20 and
certified copy of the said request as Ex.PW2/21.

12. Certified copy of the debit voucher of imprest clearing account as
Ex.PW2/23.

13. Credit clearing voucher of Rs.70,000/ and Rs.80,000/ and
transferred the said amount to current account No. 3798 of the defendant
No.1 and to the SF A/c No. 19222 of R.P. Kalra and B.K. Kalra as Ex.PW2/27
and Ex.PW2/27A respectively.

14. Certified copy of the two credit clearing vouchers of Rs.4,00,000/
each as Ex.PW2/28A and Ex.PW2/28B. SHUCHI
LALER

15. Certified copies of the cheques bearing No.944954 and 944955 for a
sum of Rs.30,000/ and Rs.2,000/ respectively as Ex.PW2/29 and Ex.PW2/30.

16. Certified copies of the cheques bearing No. 944956 and 944957, both
Digitally
for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ each, dated 02.12.1997 as Ex.PW2/31 and signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Ex.PW2/32 respectively. Date:

2026.07.11

17. Certified copy of the credit clearing voucher as Ex.PW2/34. 17:05:04
+0530

18. Debit vouchers got issued by defendant No.2 by debiting the current
account No. 3798 for Rs.2,00,100/ each as Ex.PW2/34A and Ex.PW2/34B
and the debit voucher for Rs.25,000/ as Ex.PW2/34C.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.24 of 49

19. Certified copy of two credit clearing vouchers of Rs.4,50,000/ each
as Ex.PW2/35 and Ex.PW2/36.

20. Certified copies of the cheques issued for two pay orders as
Ex.PW2/37 and Ex.PW2/38 and copy of cheque for Rs.22,630/ as Ex.PW2/39,
and the certified copy of the cash order of Rs.90,000/ issued in favour of M/s
Sumangal & Co. by defendant No.2 as Ex.PW2/40.

21. Certified copy of the clearing voucher of Rs.2,30,000/ credited into
the account No. 3798 of defendant No.1 as Ex.PW2/42. The certified copy of
the debit voucher issued against the same is exhibited as Ex.PW2/43.

22. Certified copy of the credit clearing voucher of Rs.2,50,000/ as
Ex.PW2/45 and the certified copy of debit voucher as Ex.PW2/46.

23. Legal demand notice issued to the defendants as UPC as Ex.PW2/52
and returned envelopes as Ex.PW2/53 to Ex.PW2/55.

24. Remaining documents, which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/10,
Ex.PW1/16, Ex.PW2/21A, Ex.PW2/22, Ex.PW2/24 to Ex.PW2/26, SHUCHI
Ex.PW2/26A, Ex.PW2/28, Ex.PW2/33, Ex.PW2/41, Ex.PW2/44, Ex.PW2/47 to LALER
Ex.PW2/51 in the affidavit, were marked by Ld. Joint Registrar on

06.02.2015. Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11

16. PW3: Mr. B.M. Agarwal (Manager, Plaintiff Bank) 17:05:15
+0530

entered the witness box and tendered his affidavit of evidence
as Ex.PW3/A and relied upon the documents such as Power
of Attorney in his favour as Ex.PW3/1 and copy of statement
of account as Ex.PW3/2.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.25 of 49

17. During his crossexamination, on behalf of the defendant
No.3, PW3 admitted that he has not filed the original power
of attorney in his favour nor he had brought the same in
Court. PW3 volunteered and stated that he had retired in the
year, 2000 and he surrendered the original power of attorney
to the plaintiff Bank but the same was not traceable yet and
the bank had issued a certificate to that effect and he had filed
copy of the same. He further deposed that he had not brought
any authorization letter from the bank to depose in this case,
however, he volunteered and stated that it is not required as
he is the authorized representative of the bank. He also
admitted that the rate of interest, which is mentioned in his
affidavit, does not apply on saving accounts. When PW3 was SHUCHI
LALER

questioned as to on what basis interest @ 16.32% p.a. has
Digitally
been claimed in para No.4 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, he signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

replied that the said rate of interest is chargeable on clean 2026.07.11
17:05:22
+0530

overdraft and amount of fraud, i.e., Rs.74,20,232.28 has been
taken as clean overdraft. He admitted that it is not mentioned
in the plaint that the amount of Rs.74,20,232.28 was taken as
clean overdraft. He volunteered and stated that the said
amount was fraudulently credited to the saving accounts and

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.26 of 49
therefore, the same has been taken as clean overdraft. He
further admitted that the alleged fraud did not take place
during his tenure in the plaintiff bank. He further deposed
that he has driven his knowledge about the instant case from
the records of the bank. He denied the suggestion that the
defendant No.1 did not commit any fraud with the bank. He
admitted that he has not filed any authorization letter in his
favour on record. He also admitted that he had not mentioned
anything in his affidavit about fraud committed by the
defendants with the bank. On 20.05.2020, crossexamination
of PW3 was deferred on request of Ld. Counsel for
defendants No.1 & 2.

18. PW4: Mr. A.K. Gaur (Manager, National Clearing Cell,
SHUCHI
RBI) had brought the summoned record, i.e., the browsing LALER

sheets Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/8 with respect to the cheques
Digitally
bearing Nos. 056228, 056229, 056243, 056244, 944951, signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

056236, 944964 and 944965 respectively. 2026.07.11
17:05:27
+0530

19. During crossexamination, PW4 admitted that in the
browsing sheets, neither the name of the depositing part nor

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.27 of 49
the collecting party is appearing anywhere. He further
deposed that the record brought by him was maintained in the
computer in RBI and he himself took out the hard copy of the
record, i.e., Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/8. He admitted that the
handwritten entries on all the exhibits were not in the hard
copies when the same were taken out. He volunteered and
stated that he had written these codes on the said exhibits,
which are city code, bank code and branch code to
understand the documents. When he was asked, if it is correct
that he had not filed the record of deciphering of these codes,
he answered that he was not asked for the same. Further,
when he was asked that the cheque Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/9
were not received by the drawee bank or any complaint was
given by the drawee bank (plaintiff bank) to the RBI or not,
he answered that the said record is not available as on date
and hence he could not tell anything in that regard. SHUCHI
LALER

20. Perusal of record reveals that the evidence of plaintiff Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
Bank was closed without crossexamination of PW3 by LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
defendant No.1 and 2 and without any crossexamination of 17:05:33
+0530

PW2. On 06.02.2015 and on 07.05.2015, the matter was

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.28 of 49
adjourned at joint request and no crossexamination of PW2
could be conducted. Thereafter, on 15.09.2015, it was
submitted that PW2 has retired from the plaintiff Bank.

21. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District
Courts, vide notification No.27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated
24.11.2015, the instant file was transferred from Hon’ble
Delhi High Court to this Court on 02.02.2016. PW2 had
appeared before this Court on 01.07.2016, however, as
defendants were not appearing, court notice was directed to
be issued to them. Thereafter, defendant No.3 expired and an
application was filed under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC for
bringing his LRs on record, which was dismissed by Ld.
Predecessor on 14.12.2018 and the suit was abated qua
defendant No.3. The matter was again listed for PE, the
plaintiff did not produce any witness nor any affidavit was SHUCHI
LALER
filed, hence, Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.03.2022
closed the plaintiff’s evidence. Ld. Counsel for defendants Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
No.1 and 2 submitted that even they do not wish to lead LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
evidence and defence evidence was also closed. 17:05:39
+0530

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.29 of 49

22. The plaintiff preferred an application for review of order,
dated 03.03.2022, bearing Misc. DJ No. 596/2024 and prayed
that the evidence of plaintiff Bank be reopened. The said
application was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor vide order
dated 16.11.2024.

ARGUMENTS:

23. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently urged that the
instant suit is based on irrefutable documentary evidence of
fraud committed by defendants No.1 and 2 in active
connivance with bank employee/defendant No.3. He further
submitted that PW2 and PW3 were fully conversant with the
facts and have duly proved the plaintiff’s case through their
affidavits Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A. The power of attorney SHUCHI
LALER
Ex.PW3/1, though a photocopy, is admissible as secondary
evidence since the original could not be traced despite best Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
efforts. He further submitted that the statement of account Date:

2026.07.11
17:05:44
Ex.PW3/2 duly reflects the fraudulent credits, withdrawals +0530

and transfers and crossexamination of PW3 was conducted
by defendant No.3’s counsel, which would be binding on
defendants No.1 and 2 as their liability is joint and several. It

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.30 of 49
was also contended that the defendants No.1 and 2 had ample
opportunities to crossexamine PW2 and PW3, but they
failed due to their own fault or strategic reasons. Nonjoinder
of beneficiaries was urged to be not fatal as the primary
liability rests on the defendants who operated the accounts
and benefited directly/indirectly. As per him, the plaintiff
Bank has duly proved its case and is entitled to suit amount
along with interest.

24. Ld. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 argued that all
the essential elements, which the plaintiff Bank had to bring
on record showing as to how the fraud was committed and
the amount was due against the defendant, have not been
proved on record. In absence of cogent evidence on record, SHUCHI
LALER
the plaintiff bank has miserably failed to establish any
liability of defendants. He further argued that there are catena
Digitally
of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Courts, where it has been held that ordinarily, it is the duty of Date:

2026.07.11
the party to lead the best evidence in his possession, which 17:05:51
+0530

could throw light on the issue in controversy and if such
material evidence is withheld, the court is entitled to draw an

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.31 of 49
adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
He also argued that it is a settled legal position that when a
party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and does
not offer himself to be crossexamined by the other side, a
presumption shall arise that the case set up by him is not
correct and this shall give rise to an adverse inference against
him. Thus, he argued that testimonies of PW2 and PW3 have
remained incomplete and they could not be crossexamined
by the defendants. Therefore, there is no reason to believe
testimonies of aforesaid witnesses and this by itself is
considered sufficient for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff.
Further, the testimony of PW4 is of no use as he has not SHUCHI
LALER
deposed at all regarding the alleged fraud committed by the
defendants with the plaintiff bank at the relevant point of
Digitally
signed by
time. Consequently, he argued that the suit of the plaintiff SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

bank is liable to be dismissed. 2026.07.11
17:05:57
+0530

25. Rival submissions advanced at bar have been heard and
record perused.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.32 of 49

26. Issuewise findings are as under:

ISSUE No.1: “Whether this Court has pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the suit?”OPP

27. The present is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,02,83,689/
along with pendente lite and future interest. Vide notification
No. 27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015, the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Court has been enhanced to Rs.2 crores.
The notification reads as under:
“…………..

(ii) All suits or other proceedings the value of which is rupees one crore SHUCHI
and above but does not exceed rupees two crores, other than those relating to LALER
commercial disputes the specified value of which is not less than rupees one
crore (as defined in The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015), pending in
the Delhi High Court on the Original Side, excepting those cases in which Digitally
final judgments have been reserved, be transferred to the jurisdictional signed by
SHUCHI
subordinate courts.” LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:06:02
+0530

28. In view of the aforesaid notification, the claim of the
plaintiff Bank, which is restricted to Rs.1,02,83,689/, is well
within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently,
this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.33 of 49
ISSUE No.2 “Whether the suit is bad for suppression of
material facts?”OPD

29. Undoubtedly, the Court can refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction when there is suppression of
material facts. Material fact would mean material for the
purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary
whereof would be that whether the same was material for
grant or denial of the relief1.

30. The instant issue was framed in view of preliminary
objection No.1 of written statement of defendant No.3, which
SHUCHI
reads as under: LALER

“The the plaintiff has not come before this Hon’ble Court with clean
Digitally
hands and has suppressed various important relevant acts with a view to signed by
SHUCHI
abuse the process of law as well as to defraud the answering defendant. LALER
Date:

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and as such the suit of the 2026.07.11
17:06:07
plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.” +0530

31. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph reveals that the
defendant has nowhere disclosed as to what were these facts,
which were allegedly suppressed by the plaintiff Bank and
how the same were material. Moreover, the defendants have

1 Reference may be made to judgement titled as Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India &
Ors. Appeal (Civil) 2205/2007, dated 27.04.2007.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.34 of 49
not led any evidence in support of this issue.

32. The plaintiff cannot be nonsuited on the basis of such
vague and bald averments as made in preliminary objection
No.1 of written statement of defendant No.3. Issue No.2 is
decided in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against
defendants.

ISSUE No.3 “Whether the suit is barred under Order II,
Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure?”OPD.

33. The defendant No.3, in para No.6 of the written SHUCHI
LALER

statement, has alleged that the present suit is barred under
Digitally
Order II Rule 2 CPC as the plaintiff bank has not included signed by
SHUCHI
LALER

whole claim in respect of the same cause of action in the Date:

2026.07.11
17:06:14
+0530
present suit.

34. In order to make Order II Rule 2 CPC applicable, the
defendant was required to prove the following conditions:

a) The previous and second suit must arise out of the same cause of
action;

b) The cause of action on which the subsequent suit is founded should
have arisen to the plaintiff where he sought enforcement of first claim

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.35 of 49
before any Court;

c) Both the suits must be between the same parties;

d) And the earlier suit must have been decided on merits.

35. The defendants have neither led any evidence nor have
filed on record the certified copies of any previous suit
between the same parties to show that the earlier suit was
founded on the same cause of action on which the instant suit
is based. Hence, the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not
SHUCHI
apply in the present case. LALER

36. Issue No.3 issue is decided against the defendants and in
favour of the plaintiff. Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:06:22
ISSUE No.4 “Whether the suit is barred by +0530

limitation?”OPD.

37. Though, the defendants have not led any evidence nor
have made a specific averment as to how the present suit is
barred by limitation, yet, perusal of the record reveals that the
fraud was discovered on 06.03.1998 and even the bank
transactions pertain to the period w.e.f. 07.02.1997 to
20.02.1998, whereas, the present suit has been filed on
13.10.1999, i.e., within a period of three years. Hence, the
CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.36 of 49
suit is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation.

38. Issue No.4 is decided against the defendants and in
favour of the plaintiff Bank.

ISSUE No.5 “Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary parties?”OPD.

39. The defendants have averred in their written statements
that the present suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of
SHUCHI
parties, inasmuch as, the ultimate beneficiaries of the alleged LALER

transactions were M/s Sugam Investments, Mr. Sudhir Kalra
& Ritu Kalra, Mr. R.P. Kalra, Mr. Nagesh Kumar Nagpal, Digitally
signed by

M/s Sumangal & Co., M/s Piyush & Co., Mr. Vinay Kumar,
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
Mr. Hitesh Kumar and M/s Vaibhav Shares Private Limited. 17:06:32
+0530

40. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff Bank, in its replication, has
admitted that these persons were the ultimate beneficiaries of
the transactions, the plaintiff Bank has filed the instant suit
for recovery on account of alleged fraud being committed by
the defendants.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.37 of 49

41. As it is pleaded that the defendants actively colluded and
siphoned the funds, the case could not have proceeded
without impleading the defendants, hence, they are the
necessary parties. The aforesaid persons, such as M/s Sugam
Investments, Mr. Sudhir Kalra & Ritu Kalra, Mr. R.P. Kalra,
Mr. Nagesh Kumar Nagpal etc. were the beneficiaries who
received the funds and their presence would have facilitated
the tracing of misappropriated amount, yet the decree could
not have become inexecutable, in their absence. Hence, these
persons were merely proper parties to the instant suit and
their nonjoinder is not fatal to the suit.

SHUCHI

42. Issue No.5 is disposed off accordingly. LALER

Digitally signed
by SHUCHI
ISSUE No.6 “Whether the suit discloses no cause of LALER
Date:
2026.07.11
action?” OPD. 17:06:38
+0530

43. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of
material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove
in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.38 of 49

44. In this regard, the defendants, again, have not led any
evidence, consequently, have failed to prove that the plaint
does not disclose cause of action. Even otherwise, the
plaintiff Bank has disclosed in the plaint, the numerous
transactions/bank transfers which resulted in siphoning of
huge amount of Rs.1,02,83,689/, thereby constituting a valid
cause of action for institution of the present suit, although, it
is a different matter that the plaintiff Bank has not been able
to prove its case and get the relief prayed for.

45. Issue No.6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants. SHUCHI
LALER

ISSUE No.7 “Whether there is no privity of contract
Digitally
signed by
between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, B.K. Kalra, SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

regarding transaction in dispute in respect of the account 2026.07.11
17:06:43
+0530
in question?”OPD

46. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that there appears
to be a typographical error in framing of this issue. Sh. B.K.
Kalra was impleaded as defendant No.3 in the instant suit and
defendant No.2 is Sh. Raman Chawla, who is proprietor of

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.39 of 49
defendant No.1 proprietorship concern. The issue
inadvertently refers to privity of contract between the
plaintiff and defendant No.2, Sh. B.K. Kalra, whereas,
instead of defendant No.2, defendant No.3 should have been
mentioned. The Court proceeds to decide this issue treating it
as related to defendant No.3/Sh. B.K. Kalra.

47. Though there was a direct bankercustomer/contractual
relationship only between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and
2, defendant No.3, being employee of the plaintiff Bank,
allegedly conspired with defendants No.1 and 2 to
manipulate account No.3798 through fake credits, destruction
of cheques and siphoning of funds, thus, defendant No.3
SHUCHI
breached the terms of his employment and his fiduciary duty LALER

to protect the Bank’s interest. However, since the suit already
stands abated qua defendant No.3 vide order dated Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
14.12.2018 and the said order has attained finality, this Issue Date:

2026.07.11
17:06:49
has become infructuous and is disposed off accordingly. +0530

ISSUE No.8 “Whether the suit has been filed by a duly
authorised person?”OPP

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.40 of 49

48. The plaintiff Bank, in para No.1 of the plaint, has averred
that Sh. B.M. Aggarwal, who is its Manager, is conversant
with the facts of the case and is competent to institute the
present suit. Sh. B.M. Aggarwal stepped into the witness box
as PW3 and relied upon his power of attorney Ex.PW3/1,
which was objected to on the ground of mode of proof as the
original was not produced. PW3 stated in his cross
examination that original power of attorney is not traceable.

Ld. Counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 vehemently urged that
the plaintiff Bank could not produce the original power of
SHUCHI
attorney relating to its authorized official Sh. B.M. Aggarwal, LALER

hence, the present suit has not been instituted by a duly
authorized person and is liable to be dismissed on this Digitally
signed by

solitary ground.

SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:06:54
+0530

49. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “United Bank of
India vs. Naresh Kumar” decided on 18.09.1996, on this
aspect observed as below:

“…..In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on
behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be
defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the
root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is
sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.41 of 49
that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a
substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a
procedural irregularity which is curable.

Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is
required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a
juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on
behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or
any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to
depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company.
Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of
authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in
Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify
the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors
Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic
entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written
statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance
with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A
person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the SHUCHI
company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that LALER
effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In
absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it’s
officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it’s officer in signing the
pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the Digitally
signed by
basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the SHUCHI
LALER
case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion Date:

    that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's            2026.07.11
                                                                                            17:07:00
    officer.                                                                                +0530

…..It will be a travesty of justice if the appellant is to be non suited for a
technical reason which does not go to the root of the matter. The suit did not
suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and the only defect which was alleged
on behalf of the respondents was one which was curable.

The court had to be satisfied that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi could sign the plaint
on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been filed in the name of the appellant
company; full amount of court fee had been paid by the appellant bank;
documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant
and the trial of the suit before the Sub Judge, Ambala, had continued for
about two years. It is difficult, in these circumstances, even to presume that
the suit had been filed and tried without the appellant having authorised the

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.42 of 49
institution of the same. The only reasonable conclusion which we can come to
is that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in
any case, it must be held that the appellant had ratified the action of Sh. L.K.
Rohatgi in signing the plaint and thereafter it continued with the suit…..”

50. The defendants have nowhere disputed that Sh. B.M.
Aggarwal/PW3 was not the manager of the plaintiff Bank at
the relevant time. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case titled
as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Okara
Trade Parcel Carriage, RFA No. 160/1991, decided on
17.12.2010, held that a General Manager of a Company is
SHUCHI
indeed a principal officer within the meaning of Order XXIX LALER

Rule 1 CPC. Sh. B.M. Aggarwal, being the Branch Manager,
was indeed the Principal Officer, hence, was authorized to
institute the present suit. The objection of the defendant that Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
the present suit has not been filed by the authorized person is LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
without substance and is untenable. 17:07:05
+0530

51. Issue No.8 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant.

ISSUES No.9 “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit
amount?, if so, to what amount”OPP

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.43 of 49
ISSUES No.10 “Whether the suit is based on
unauthorized and unilateral entries in statement of
account, if so to what effect” OPD.

52. Both these core issues are interconnected and can be
disposed off by a common discussion. The case of the
plaintiff Bank is that the defendant No.1 opened a current
account bearing No.3798, which was being operated by its
sole proprietor/defendant No.2, however, on inspection in
March 1998, it was found that this account was used for SHUCHI
LALER
illegal activities, whereby credit was being given without any
instrument, cheques were destroyed and amount was debited
to imprest clearing account of the plaintiff Bank. This fraud Digitally
signed by
was allegedly committed upon the plaintiff Bank from SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

10.04.1997 to 20.02.1998 resulting in siphoning of an
2026.07.11
17:07:11
+0530

amount of Rs.74,24,037.78 by the defendants. Defendants
No.1 and 2 were allegedly assisted by defendant No.3, who
was an employee of the plaintiff Bank. The defendants No.1
and 2 have denied any wrong doing and have resisted the
claim.

53. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff Bank examined

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.44 of 49
four witnesses. Out of these four witnesses, PW2 and PW3
being officials of the Bank, are material witnesses. PW2, in
his examinationinchief, reiterated the facts mentioned in his
plaint and relied upon the cheques and credit vouchers. PW3
had produced the statement of account Ex.PW3/1, which was
objected to by Ld. Counsels for the defendants as the original
was not produced. The plaintiff’s evidence commenced in
2007, however, both these witnesses did not appear for cross
examination by Ld. Counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 and
the plaintiff’s evidence was eventually closed by Ld. SHUCHI
LALER
Predecessor on 03.03.2022. Thereafter, review application
was preferred by plaintiff Bank, which was also dismissed on
Digitally
16.11.2024. signed by
SHUCHI
LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
17:07:16

54. The affidavits of PW2 and PW3 contain their self +0530

favouring versions which have not been tested through cross
examination. PW2 allegedly claimed in his affidavit
Ex.PW2/A that he had personal knowledge of the fraud, his
testimony untested by crossexamination, has no probative
value. Mere filing of affidavit, when the witness has not been
subjected to crossexamination, cannot be construed as a

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.45 of 49
sufficient evidence before any Court of law. No evidence
affecting a party is admissible against that party unless the
latter had an opportunity of testing its truthfulness by cross
examination1.

55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 has
categorically observed as under:

“16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and
states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by
the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not
correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High SHUCHI
Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar LALER
Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore
High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and
the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai
http://www.judis.nic.in Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Digitally
signed by
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh SHUCHI
Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar LALER
Date:

Gurbakhsh Singh‘s case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. 2026.07.11
Virender Nath and Anr. Held that if a party abstains from entering the witness 17:07:23
+0530
box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a
Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v.
Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.”

56. In the judgment of D.F.Philips vs. Dhamayanthi
Kailasam and Others, 2009 (4) TLNJ 217 (Civil), it was
1 Reliance is placed upon the judgement Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2003) 4 SCC 465.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.46 of 49
held as follows:

“26. In ordinary circumstances, evidence not tested by cross examination
has no probative value. There should be an opportunity to the opposite party
to cross examine the witness. Things would be different in case the
opportunity to cross examine was not availed of by the opposite party.
Evidence of a witness given in chief without subjecting such evidence for
cross examination on account of death of the witness is also permissible.
However, its probative value would be very little.

27. Similarly, question would arise as in the subject case, about the
evidence receded inconclusive. The evidence recorded in cases where cross
examination was not done completely cannot be discarded altogether. It all
depends upon case to case and no uniform rule of general application could
be made in such matters. In cases wherein cross examination was practically
completed and the witness was not in a position to subject himself for further
cross examination on account of illness or otherwise, or on account of other
justifiable reasons, the probative value of such evidence has to be considered
by the Court. Section 33 of the Evidence Act permits the evidence given by a
witness in a judicial proceeding or a later stage of the very same judicial
proceeding, the truth of the facts which was elicited during such examination,
when the witness was dead or cannot be found or was incapable of giving
SHUCHI
evidence or in case the witness was kept out of the way by the adverse party. LALER
However, the proviso to the said Section also provides that the adverse party
in the first proceeding must have the right and opportunity to cross examine
him so as to use the evidence so tendered in the subsequent proceeding or in Digitally
later stage of the same proceeding. Therefore, everything depends upon the signed by
SHUCHI
peculiar facts of the said case. If the failure to face the further cross LALER
Date:

examination was involuntary, it stands in a different footing. 2026.07.11

28. There is no provision for eschewing the incomplete evidence of a 17:07:28
+0530
witness. The evidentiary value or probative value of such evidence is a matter
to be considered by the trail Court, Situations would arise where on account
of the less favourable answers given in the initial stage of cross examination,
the witness may avoid the box on subsequent occasions. In such
circumstances, the trail Court is justified in forming an opinion about the
probative value of such evidence in the peculiar factual background. In all
cases where there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the witness to
avoid cross examination, evidence would be admissible but its probative value
is a matter to be decided by the trail Court. Merely by avoiding further cross
examination, it cannot be said that the entire evidence has to be eschewed
from consideration. It is always possible for the Court to examine all the

CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.47 of 49
surrounding circumstances leading to the avoidance of further cross
examination and to come to a definite conclusion as to whether it was
deliberate act on the part of the witness.”

57. Now applying the aforesaid principles to the present case.
The testimony of PW2 was pivotal and sinequanon to
establish the allegations of fraud against the defendants. PW2
did not offer himself for crossexamination, which has
obliterated his version. It is not the case of the plaintiff that
PW2 was not in a position to subject himself for cross
examination on account of illness or other justifiable reasons.
The plaintiff Bank was given ample opportunities in a span
of 15 years1 to produce the material witness/PW2 for his
crossexamination, which they failed to avail and there is no
explanation forthcoming for such a failure, when the suit
SHUCHI
involves misappropriation of funds of more than one crore. LALER

58. There is no whisper of allegations of fraud in the entire Digitally
signed by
SHUCHI
affidavit of PW3. PW3 has merely relied upon the statement LALER
Date:

2026.07.11
of account Ex.PW3/2. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 17:07:34
+0530

1872 (now, Section 28 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023) renders statement of account, perse, insufficient to
1 Plaintiff’s evidence commenced in the year, 2007 and was closed on 03.03.2022.

CS No.151/2020

PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
Page No.48 of 49
fasten liability. There is no oral or documentary
corroboration to prove the alleged fraudulent transactions.
The plaintiff Bank has miserably failed to prove the
allegations of fraud as incorporated in the plaint on the scale
of preponderance of probabilities.

59. Both Issues No.9 & No.10 are decided against the
plaintiff Bank and in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2.

RELIEF:

60. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the suit
of the plaintiff Bank stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.

61. Decree sheet shall be prepared, accordingly. File be
consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by SHUCHI
SHUCHI LALER
Date:

                                                                    LALER          2026.07.11
Announced in the open                                                              17:07:41
                                                                                   +0530
Court on 11.07.2026                              (Shuchi Laler)
                                        District Judge02, East District,
                                         Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.



CS No.151/2020
PNB Vs. Rohan Securities etc.
                                                                Page No.49 of 49

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Punjab National Bank vs Rohan Securities on 11 July, 2026

Delhi District Court