MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Upholds Right to Summon Records in Banking Dispute: Sets Aside Lower Court’s Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon’ble Justice Karamjit Singh, has set a precedent in a banking dispute case involving Lekh Ram and the State Bank of India. The court overturned a lower court’s decision that had denied the petitioner’s request to summon the Branch Manager of the respondent bank with crucial documents.

Justice Singh, in his observation, emphasized the petitioner’s rights, stating, “The petitioner has every right to establish his defence by summoning the concerned record which is lying in the office of respondent Bank.” This statement underlines the importance of allowing parties in a dispute to access necessary documents for their defense, especially in complex financial cases.

The dispute originated from a recovery suit filed by the State Bank of India against Lekh Ram for an alleged default on a credit facility. The petitioner contested this claim, asserting regular interest payments and highlighting a related dispute over insurance premium payments handled by the bank.

In a previous hearing, the lower court had dismissed the petitioner’s application to summon the bank manager and specific documents, citing that the petitioner failed to establish their relevance during the cross-examination of the bank’s official who had appeared as a witness. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court’s decision, parting ways with the lower court’s judgment, granted the petitioner the permission to summon the relevant bank official along with specified documents. However, the court excluded the KYC norms of the respondent bank from this directive. Justice Singh clarified, “The exact relevancy of the documents could be assessed only after going through their contents.”

Further, the High Court directed that a different bank official, other than the one who had already testified, could be summoned with the records. This move ensures that the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and defense is upheld.

In his concluding remarks, Justice Singh stated, “Any observations made hereinabove are not to be considered as opinion on merits of case.” This statement highlights the court’s neutral stance on the case’s outcome while ensuring procedural fairness.

Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

Lekh Ram VS State Bank Of India

Latest Legal News