JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for final judgment and decree against the defendant/respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,24,77,15,252.03 together with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Admittedly, the defendants have not filed the written statement as on the date of the filing of the instant application and the relief’s claimed in the instant application is in the nature of summary judgment. 2. The fact emerged from the application is that the petitioner is a registered non banking financial company for providing loans for infrastructure projects in the State of West Bengal. For smooth running of the business, the petitioner raises money from the public upon issuance of the Government guaranteed bonds. Some of the bonds so issued have been rated by approved rating agencies and during the year 2005 to 2008 and 2010/2011 the petitioner issued the bond series of Rs. 1000 Crores, which were approved by a rating agency like Credit Analysis and Research Limited, India Rating and Research Pvt. Ltd. and Brickwork Rating India Pvt. Ltd. The salient conditions of those bonds as imposed by the rating agencies was that a sinking fund ought to be created for the purpose of securing the redemption of bonds. Such sinking fund are required to be kept with the lying under bond trusties accumulating to full or partial redemption value of the relevant bond series as per the terms and conditions of the approved rating agencies. Axis Bank Ltd. and Axis Trustee Services Ltd. are the bond trusties in respect of the aforesaid bond series. 3. In compliance of those conditions, the petitioner created various term deposits and recurring deposits in various banks for maintaining sinking funds and during the financial year 2011-2012 several deposits were made in different banks to the tune of Rs. 3,872.82 Crores having maturity value as on 31st March, 2012. For the next Financial Year 2012-2013, the deposits to the tune of Rs. 2,563 Crores maturity value were also made in various banks. 4. The petitioner claimed to have long standing relationship with the respondent in maintaining various term deposits with its different branches. In 2005, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 9 Crores with the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent under term deposit. 2,563 Crores maturity value were also made in various banks. 4. The petitioner claimed to have long standing relationship with the respondent in maintaining various term deposits with its different branches. In 2005, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 9 Crores with the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent under term deposit. Since, there is an involvement of the transfer of large value, the facility of Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) introduced by the Reserve Bank of India was availed of by the petitioner for various term deposits in the different banks as well as the various branches of the respondent. 5. The petitioner intended to make a term deposit of Rs. 59 Crores in a public/private sector bank for the purpose of creating a sinking fund for one of the bond series. The Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent in its letter dated 30th August, 2012 quoted the best interest rate on bulk term deposits exceeding Rs. 10 Crores and also intimated the account number with RTGS code to facilitate the transfer of high value through such mechanism. Since the rate of interest was the base rate offered by the said branch of the respondent, it was approved in a resolution of the investment committee of the petitioner and appros the same an instruction was given to Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch being the petitioner’s banker to transfer the said amount from the existing over draft account to the account number provided by the respondent in the said letter dated 30th August 2012. The said term deposit is to be kept in the name of the petitioner as beneficiary. Immediately, upon receipt of the said amount, the petitioner’s banker namely Bank of India issued a confirmation letter, which was intimated by the petitioner to the Circus Avenue Branch of the petitioner with necessary direction to keep the said amount under a term deposit for three years at the rate of 9.65% per annum, which was duly acknowledged. 6. In or about 2013, another term deposit of Rs. 61 Crores was also transferred to the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent, which was also duly acknowledged. The petitioner was surprised to learn on or about 12th/13th March, 2013 that the substantial part of the aforesaid amount received by the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent are no longer lying to the credit of the petitioner. 61 Crores was also transferred to the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent, which was also duly acknowledged. The petitioner was surprised to learn on or about 12th/13th March, 2013 that the substantial part of the aforesaid amount received by the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent are no longer lying to the credit of the petitioner. The petitioner informed the respondent to refund the aforesaid amount and pay the proceeds thereof along with the interest by causing a letter through its advocate and solicitor on 26th March, 2013. As the respondent did not pay the said amount, the present is filed for recovery of the said sum. 7. The petitioner took out an application for appointment of receiver over the said sum of Rs. 37 Crores, which are still lying with the Circus Avenue Branch with the respondent, which came to be disposed of on 6th September, 2013. This Court appointed the joint receivers being the advocate on records of the parties and directed the respondent to create a fixed deposit in their joint names for the said sum of Rs. 37 Crores yielding highest rate of interest and the original deposit receipts shall be made over to one of the joint receivers who shall keep the same until further orders. It is specifically observed in the said order that the respondent have already filed a civil suit before this Court for disputing the aforesaid fixed deposits, which is still pending. 8. Subsequently, the present application has been taken out, as intimated above for final judgment and decree covering the aforesaid two term deposits with interests. The respondent is contesting the present application by filing the affidavit in opposition. It is a specific stand of the respondent that after receiving a telephonic call from the petition to attend an urgent meeting relating to the aforesaid two high value term deposits, a doubt was raised in the mind of the officer who attended the said meeting over the genunity and authenticity of the term deposit receipts as well as the correspondences exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent. On enquiry it was revealed that those documents are forged and fabricated and no term deposit has been made with the said branch showing the petitioner as beneficiary thereof. On enquiry it was revealed that those documents are forged and fabricated and no term deposit has been made with the said branch showing the petitioner as beneficiary thereof. It is stated therein that the account number, which was shown in one of such correspondences stands in the name of one M/s S.A. Enterprises opened in the said branch on 24.05.2012 under the proprietorship of one Pradip Chongdar of 21/4, B.T. Road, Kolkata. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 120 Crore was credited in the said account, out of which Rs. 82.69 Crore had been withdrawn and remitted through RTGS and Pay Orders in various accounts and some amounts were also withdrawn in cash. 9. Upon detection of the aforesaid fraud, the complaint was lodged with the police and the then Branch Manager was arrested and some amount of money was also recovered from him. The respondents therefore says that they are not liable to pay the aforesaid amount and filed the suit before this Court for declaration that those term deposits are forged and fabricated and the respondents are not liable to pay the said amount. 10. As indicated above, it is undeniable that a sum of Rs. 37 Crore was still lying in the said account and now have been secured by appointing joint receivers. According to the petitioner, since the transfer of the aforesaid amount has not been disputed and if any forgery is committed by the Bank Manager of the respondent, the petitioner should not suffer for such act. 11. It is submitted that the Bank Manager acts as an agent for and on behalf of the principal, the respondent herein and if such agent commits a fraud in course of the business, the principal is liable for such action of the agent and therefore the stand of the respondent in this regard is untenable. In support of the aforesaid contention, the reliance is placed upon a judgment rendered in case of Lloyd Vs. Grace, Smith and Company reported in (1912) A-C-716, United Africa Company Ltd. Vs. Saka Owoade reported in (1957) 3 All England Report 216 and Haryana Gramin Bank & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal reported in (2011) 15 SCC 113. It is thus said that the final decree and judgment should be passed, as the respondents have no plausible defence against the claim of the petitioner. 12. Saka Owoade reported in (1957) 3 All England Report 216 and Haryana Gramin Bank & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal reported in (2011) 15 SCC 113. It is thus said that the final decree and judgment should be passed, as the respondents have no plausible defence against the claim of the petitioner. 12. On the other hand, the respondent says that if a triable issue is raised in the defence, which is fair, bona fide and reasonable, the respondent should be granted a leave to defend unconditionally. It is, further submitted that a serious case of fraud and forgery has been made out and therefore it would not be prudent to deny leave to defend as such defence cannot be brought within the purview of illusory imagination and sham one. In support of the aforesaid contention, the reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of M/s Sunil Enterprises & Anr. Vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Limited reported in AIR (1998) SC 2317 and State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Rabo Bank reported in AIR (2015) SC 3820. 13. The point which emerged in this application is whether the respondent has a good defence to the claim of the petitioner which is a triable issue required to be decided on evidence. The factum of transfer of Rs. 120 Crore on diverged date to the Circus Avenue Branch of the respondent bank is not disputed. According to the petitioner, the same was intended to be kept in term deposit in the name of the petitioner as beneficiary. On the other hand, the respondent says that the said amount was deposited in the individual account through RTGS. The correspondences which are allegedly exchanged between the parties not only indicates the account number but also the RTGS code, which according to the petitioner was intimated by the Branch Manager of the said branch of the respondent and on the basis thereof the amount was transferred. The said account number stands in the name of the individual and as per the respondent large amount have been siphoned by the holder of the said account in connivance and collusion with the Branch Manager. The said account number stands in the name of the individual and as per the respondent large amount have been siphoned by the holder of the said account in connivance and collusion with the Branch Manager. The respondent has not only disputed the validity, genunity and authenticity of those correspondences and the term deposit receipts issued to the petitioner covering the aforesaid amounts but has also filed the civil suit to seek declaration in this regard. 14. In case of Lloyd (Supra) the House of Lords were considering a matter where the Managing Director of a solicitor who was duly authorized to receive deeds and carry through sales and conveyances on the solicitor’s behalf persuaded a client to sign documents transferring to him freehold property owned by her by creating a mortgage with the right to sale the said property in appropriate proceeds. The point that arose therein was that if an agent committed a fraud while acting in course of the business, which he is authorized whether the principal can be responsible for the same. Two eventualities were noticed in the said decision— firstly, when an agent commits fraud for which the principal receives the benefit; and secondly, where he does not, are answered with these observations:- “The only difference, in my opinion, between the case where the principal receives the benefit of the fraud, and the case where he does not, is that in the latter case the principal is liable for the wrong done to the person defrauded by his agent acting within the scope of his agency; in the former case he is liable on that ground and also on the ground that by taking the benefit he has adopted the act of his agent; he cannot approbate and reprobate.” 15. In case of United Africa Company Ltd. (Supra) a contract was entered into by the transport contractor with the appellant therein for transportation of the goods. The contractor introduced the driver and the clerk and asked the appellant to entrust the goods to them. The goods were not delivered to the consignee and the aforesaid two persons were convicted for theft of the goods. The contractor introduced the driver and the clerk and asked the appellant to entrust the goods to them. The goods were not delivered to the consignee and the aforesaid two persons were convicted for theft of the goods. The appellant therein sued the contractor for the price of the goods and it is held:- “In the present case, the fair inference from the facts proved is that the goods were committed expressly to the respondent’s servants and that they converted the goods whilst they were on the journey which the respondent had undertaken to carry out, and the conversion, therefore, was, in their Lordships’ view, in the course of the employment of the respondent’s servants. There is, in their Lordship’s opinion, no difference in the liability of a master for wrong whether for fraud or any other wrong committed by a servant in the course of his employment. It is a question of fact in each case whether the wrong was committed in the course of the servant’s employment and, in the present case, their Lordships are of opinion that, on the uncontradicted evidence, the conversion of the appellant’s goods took place in the course of the employment of the respondent’s servants.” 16. The decision rendered in Haryana Gramin Bank & Anr. (Supra) is decided in somewhat similar facts and circumstances that of the present case. The Consumer For a was approached by the complainant therein alleging the deficiencies of service against the bank. The Savings Bank Account was opened by the complainant and certain amount was deposited therein. At the time of withdrawal of the money, it was detected that the bank officials have fabricated the records and withdrew the amount deposited in the said account. The bank took a stand that they are not liable for the wrong done by their officials. A special defence was taken that the entries in the ledger showing the withdrawal of the amount from the said account that the complainant had himself made interpolations in inflating the amount deposited in the bank. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay the amount showing in the passbook. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission, which was affirmed by the National Commission in revision. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay the amount showing in the passbook. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission, which was affirmed by the National Commission in revision. The Apex Court held that the argument that the complainant made certain manipulation in the passbook could not be proved by cogent materials and found the bank vicariously liable for the act of its official. 17. The aforesaid facts somewhat matches with the facts involved in the instant case. There are correspondences galore which proves the offer and acceptance to those deposits and in fact the money was also deposited with the bank. The dispute hinges on where the money was deposited. The bank account number was indicated by the official of the respondent and acting bona fide thereupon the amount were deposited therein through RTGS. The respondent is vicariously liable for the wrong doing of its officer and cannot skip simply on the footing that such officer has practiced fraud. Equally, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the respondent had approached the Court by filing a separate suit for declaration of those correspondences and the term deposit receipts to be forged and fabricated one. One fact has been clearly proved from the stand of the respondent that the Branch Manager has committed fraud on the basis of an authority in course of the business and therefore the respondent cannot skip its liability to make good loss suffered by the petitioner. Hypothetically, if this Court proceeds that the suit filed by the respondent would ultimately go in its favour, yet this Court does not find the liability and the responsibility of the respondent as principal towards the petitioner on perpetration of fraud by its officer in course of his authority and the business. 18. The judgment relied upon the respondent in case of State of Hyderabad (Supra) and M/s Sunil Enterprises (Supra) had decided the question whether leave to defend should be granted if a fair, reasonable and plausible defence is set out raising a triable issue without imposing any conditions. The principles laid down therein cannot be doubted and still operates in their own field. 19. This Court, therefore, does not find that those decisions have any applicability in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The principles laid down therein cannot be doubted and still operates in their own field. 19. This Court, therefore, does not find that those decisions have any applicability in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In view of my findings recorded herein above, I am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a good case for judgment and decree. There shall be a decree for a sum of Rs. 120 Crore towards the principal. Since, an amount of Rs. 37 Crore has already been held with the joint receivers, the joints receivers are directed to encash the same prematurely and shall hand over the same to the petitioner with accrued interest thereon. There shall be an interest at the rate of 9.65% per annum for 59 Crore. Since, the 61 Crore was deposited in the term deposit carrying an interest of 9.57% per annum, the said sum of Rs. 37 Crore would be adjusted against the same and the interest accrued thereupon would also be adjusted against the said term deposit and the balance interest at the rate of 9.57% per annum would be paid by the respondent. The sum of Rs. 59 Crore shall be paid along with the interest at the rate of 9.65% per annum. 20. The interest would be calculated from the date of the respective deposits till its actual payment. 21. The application is thus allowed. 22. However, there shall be no order as to costs.