Showing posts with label bank statement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bank statement. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 March 2025

Bombay HC: Whether detailed ingredients mentioned in clause 8 of S. 2 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 for qualifying to be certified copy are mandatory?

 Admittedly, the bank statements are not accompanied by certificate under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, however, bears the seal of Bank of Baroda and signature of the official. In Radheshyam G. Garg vs. Safiyabai Ibrahim Lighwalla (MANU/MH/0368/1988), this Court held the certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act to be directory as under:


"The lower appellate Court by placing reliance on section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 has held that 'certified copy' means a copy of any entry in the books of a Bank, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such entry, that such entry is contained in one of the ordinary books of the bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that such book is still in the custody of the bank, such certificate being dated and subscribed by the principal accountant or manager of the Bank with his name and official title. According to the learned Judge since the said extracts of statement of account had not been signed by the principal accountant or manager as required and since the same did not bear any date or official seal, the same could not be treated as certified copy and consequently the same could not be read in evidence.


In my judgment the aforesaid view of the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court was hypertechnical. The said extract of account was duly signed by the Agent of the bank. Implicit in it was a certificate that it was a true copy of an entry contained in one of the ordinary books of the bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of business and that such book was in the custody of the bank. The detailed ingredients mentioned in the defining clause 8 of section 2 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 for qualifying to be 'certified copy' are not mandatory but merely directory." {Para 29}


30. In the present case, the original bank statements were not per se inadmissible in evidence. What was objected was to the mode and manner of proof. As held by this Court in the decision cited above, the detailed ingredients of Section 2(8) of Bankers Book Evidence Act are merely directory. The bank statements are the original bank statements bearing the seal and signature of the bank. PW-1 has deposed about the cheque payments made through Bank of Baroda and corroborated the same by producing original bank statement. The bank statements could be received as prima facie evidence of existence of such entries. Further, the Plaintiff was cross examined by the Defendant. Once the document is used in cross examination, then the document gets proved and can be read in evidence as held by the Apex Court in case of Ram Janki Devi vs. Juggilal Kamlapat [MANU/SC/0533/1971 : 1971:INSC:35 : 1971 (1) SCC 477]. The Apex Court in that case had held that it is not possible to accept complaint of lack of proof when the documents are shown in cross examination to the witness.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1841 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

Yasin Khan and Ors. Vs. Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1001/2025,2025:BHC-AS:8423.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can decree suit for Specific performance of contract even if there are procedural irregularities regarding admissibility of documents

  • The Bombay High Court upheld a decree for specific performance despite procedural irregularities in evidence admission at the trial court level. The court concluded that even if certain documents were excluded, sufficient evidence supported granting specific performance based on the agreement's existence and fulfillment of obligations by the plaintiff.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1841 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

Yasin Khan and Ors. Vs. Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1001/2025,2025:BHC-AS:8423

Print Page

Sunday, 27 December 2015

When bank statement not bearing certificate as per Bankers' Book Evidence Act can be read in evidence in cheque dishonour case?

The learned Magistrate has
considered the written advise/memo dated 31.10.2009
(Exhibit-12) and a letter dated 02.11.2009 of Bank of Baroda
(Exhibit-13). It has been found that the advise (Exhibit-12)
did not indicate as to which Bank had issued or who had
signed the same. It is found that PW-3, Ms. Violet E Das has
not identified the written advise (Exhibit-12) and she has not 
deposed that the cheque was returned for insufficient funds.
The learned Magistrate has then referred to the evidence of
PW-5, Shri Anil Gaindhar, the Chief Manager of Bank of
Baroda, where the complainant is having an account. This
witness has stated on the basis of Statement of Account
(Exhibit-102), that the cheque was presented for payment on
31.10.2009 and was returned dishonoured for insufficient
funds on 02.11.2009 and this was so intimated to the
complainant on the same day. PW-5, Shri Anil Gaindhar has
stated that Exhibit-13, which is a letter from the Bank
intimating the complainant about dishonor of the cheque is
signed by Shri Kedar, the Chief Manager of the Bank. The
learned Magistrate has thereafter found that both the
Statements of Account (Exhibit-102) indicates that the cheque
bearing no. 510087 was returned dishonoured for insufficient
funds. However, it is held that the statement does not bear a
certificate as required under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act
and thus, cannot be read into evidence.

25. In my considered opinion, this is taking too
technical view of the matter. When the Chief Manager has
deposed that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds 
and it was so intimated to the complainant, it is difficult not to
believe the said witness for the reasons as stated by the
learned Magistrate. PW-4, Smt. Saiprithi Shirodkar has also
stated in categorical terms that the cheque was returned
dishonoured for insufficient funds. It is not possible to accept
that PW-4, Smt. Saiprithi Shirodkar and PW-5, Shri Anil
Gaindhar would fabricate a false Statement of Account, only to
help the complainant. Thus, it has to be held that the cheque
was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The point is

accordingly answered in the affirmative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2013
Mrs. Sulekhabai Yeshwantrao Chowghule,

V
Shaik Vahid Jahangir alias Shaik Vaid,

 CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 PRONOUNCED ON:- 7thAUGUST, 2015
Citation;2015 CRLJ 4824 Bom

Print Page