HYDERABAD COMMERCIALS Vs. INDIAN BANK
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Cited Judgements :-
MADURA COATS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA
BANK OF BARODA VS. NADIAD MACHINERY AND ELECTRICAL MERCHANT CREDIT CO OP SOC LIMITED
SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
VIJAI KUMAR KOHLI VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA JEEWAN VIKAS
RADHA RAMAN MISRA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
NATIONAL CAPITAL POWER STATION VS. BANK OF BARODA
PRAGATI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES P LTD VS. APSSIDC LTD
MAHAJAN CHIT FUND AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK HYDERABAD
RAGHAVENDRASINGH BHADORIA VS. STATE BANK OF INDORE
PARAMESWARILALL PUROSHOTTAMLALL VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ANNAPOORNAVVA VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
RAM KR TEWARI VS. ASSTT GENERAL MANAGER CCR BANK OF BARODA
NAGENDRA RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA VS. PODDAR UDYOG LIMITED
SUGUNA RAJKUMAR VS. R RAJMAL
SNOW VIEW PROPERTIES LTD VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. SNOW VIEW PROPERTIES LTD
JOGINDER SINGH VS. TELECOM DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PANAJI GOA
ASHOK AMRITRAJ VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
BHARAT WOOLS LUDHIANA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
Sita Ram Agrawal VS. Union of India
MADHUSUDAN CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR
ABG KANDLA CONTAINER TERMINAL LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA
HUSNE ARA, WIFE OF MD.NASEEM, VS. CHAIRMAN, UCO BANK
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF BIHAR
ANWAR HASAN VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
SHAM MAHAJAN SON OF SHRI CHUNI LAL VS. HP STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
SHAM MAHAJAN VS. H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
MIRZA ANSAR BAIG VS. MANAGER, A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED
SOFTLINE MULTIMEDIA AND ANOTHER VS. PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
RENU DEVI, WIFE OF RAVINDRA KUMAR @ ARVIND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
THE CHAIRMAN VS. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, BANKING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
LALLOO JI RAJIV CHANDRA AND SONS VS. MELADHIKARI PRAYAGRAJ
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ATMANAND SINGH
HARESH TEKCHAND RAISINGHANI VS. UNION OF INDIA
MASTER ADVAIT SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P
BMW INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UCO BANK
BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. UCO BANK
WEST BENGAL STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of facts which could be determined by the Civil Court in a suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record we find that the case does not involve any disputed questions of facts instead on admitted facts the appellant is entitled to relief.
(3.)The appellant is the Sub-Distributors of M/ s. Unimech Appliances, it has a Current Account No. 525 with the Indian Bank, Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad. The appellant had been depositing money through cheques in its Current Account from time to time. During the period 15-1-87 to 13-5-87 the appellant had deposited cheques in the Indian Bank, the amounts under those were realised by the Bank and credited to the a appellant's account but later on a sum of Rs. 12.95 lacs was transferred to the account of the respondent- M/ s. Unimech Appliances. The appellant protested the transfer of the aforesaid amount on the ground that it had never authorised the Bank for transferring the amount to respondents account. On the appellant's protest the Bank by its letter dated 21-12-1987 informed the appellant that the transfer had been made in an unauthorised manner and the same will be recredited to its account within two months. The letter runs as under:-
"Indian Bank Barkatpura, Hyderabad
M/s. Hyderabad Commercials,
We have today to inform you that we have unauthorisedly debited your account from Jan., 87 to June, 87 on various dates which will be recredited back to your account within 60 days time.
We regret very much for the inconvenience caused in this regard.
For INDIAN BANK
Sd/- x x x
Under the aforesaid letter the Bank admitted that the transfer of the disputed amount had been made by the Bank in an unauthorised manner and it further admitted its liability to pay back the amount to the appellant. By another letter Dated 21-12-1987 (Annexure 'V' to the SLP) the Bank reiterated that the amounts which were Transferred from the appellant's account on various dates between January, 1987 to June, 1987 will be credited to its account for which no consent letter had been received from the appellant. In spite of its admission of liability and assurance to recredit the disputed amount to the appellant's account the Bank failed to honour its commitment. Ultimately, the appellant filed a Writ Petition for the issue of mandamus directing the respondent Bank, a Nationalised Bank for the issue of a direction to the Bank to deposit the disputed amount in its account. The Indian Bank resisted the appellant's claim on a strange plea that the disputed amount had been transferred to the respondents account on oral instructions of the appellant. As noted earlier the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the case involved disputed questions of facts.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.