TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decreed in sum of Rs. 7,84,415/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 18.5% per annum from date of suit till realization. 4. We may note that the principal borrower i.e. defendant No.1 and co-defendants No.2 and 3 have not challenged the decree. Only the appellant is in appeal. 5. The statement of account on which the suit was based has been proved as Ex.P-13. The same reads as under:- Date Particulars Debits Cr. Or Dr. Credits Balance 10/12/97 By Balance/Totals as per last statement Brought Forward (To loan disburse) 25,00,000 Dr. 25,00,000 01/01/98 To intt upto 31.12.1997 18,443.64 26/03/98 To intt upto ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CERTIFICATE 06/12/2000 To Balance B/Forward from statement as per Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1981 Cr. 1114 To interest accrued from 01/01/99 to 05/12/2000 785529 Dr. 7,84,415 6. Since Ex.P-13 has been certified under the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge has held that entries reflected in Ex.P-13 have to be treated as correct. 7. Before analyzing Ex.P-13 viz-a-viz the challenge to the entries therein recorded, we would note at the outset that the appellant was denied the right to file a written statement and had no defence and thus was not permitted to lead any evidence. Thus, the fate of the appellant has to be decided limited to the question wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the same are not on record.......... It is correct that the minimum price of Rolls Royce is around Rs. 1 crore while the Ferrari being a sports car, its minimum value is around Rs. 2.5 crores. I cannot say on what basis the valuer of the bank has valued the car for just Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs)." 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the debit entry in sum of Rs. 42,480/- is neither by way of interest payable nor represents the money withdrawn by the defendant No.1 and hence the plaintiff bank could prove the said debit entry only if it produced the bill raised by the valuer and the voucher or receipt evidencing payment under the bill. Challenging the debit entry in sum of Rs. 7,84,529/- reflected in Ex.P-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility thereunder, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them. xxxxxx It will be clear that S.4 gives a special privilege to banks and allows certified copies of their accounts to be produced by them and those certified copies become prima facie evidence of the existence of the original entries in the accounts and are admitted as evidence of matters, transactions and accounts therein, but such admission is only where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself would be admissible by law and not further or otherwise. Original entries along under S.34 of the Evidence Act would not be sufficient to charge any person with liability and as such cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... certifying the same as correct, the bank has shown that as of 31.10.2000 a credit balance is available in the account in sum of Rs. 1,114/-. 18. From nowhere an entry has been made in the statement of account as of 6.12.2000 debiting Rs. 7,85,529/- as the alleged interest which has accrued. 19. The witness of the bank who was cross examined, and as noted above, stated that he had no personal knowledge as to in what manner the statement of account was prepared. He also stated that the stated loan ledger wherefrom the debit entry was reflected was not produced. He also stated that he had not prepared Ex.P-13 and categorically stated that he could not tell about the details of the interest which have been debited in the account and more....