- (1.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned single judge is well reasoned and in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is not in dispute before us that three different and distinct companies belonging to the same group hold separate bank accounts with the appellant-Bank. It is also not disputed that the securities for loan accounts of the individual companies are not inter mixed and are independent of each other. At some stage, one of the companies made an application for return of the security documents as it wanted to open an account with another bank. This request was denied by the appellant-Bank on the ground that either the Group closes all its accounts or none. In other words, the appellant-Bank is willing to allow the writ petitioners to maintain all the three accounts but would not permit the continuance of only two accounts out of three.
(2.) THE learned single Judge after taking into consideration the facts has come to the conclusion that the decision of the appellant-Bank was unjustified, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a direction has been issued to the Central Bank of India to process the claim of the writ petitioner for return of the documents only after the entire liability being satisfied with regard to the account of the petitioner No. 1. This order was challenged by the appellant-Bank on the ground that the liability being purely contractual, the writ petition was not maintainable and the learned single judge erred in law by entertaining the writ petition and issuing necessary directions.
(3.) IN support of his submissions, Mr. Biswarup Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Bank, has relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highway Authorities of India V. Ganga Enterprises and Anr. , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410 : AIR 2003 SC 3823 and State of U. P. and Anr. v. John Mal, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 714 : AIR 2004 SC 3800.;