TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anch of the appellant-bank. As per the mandate of respondent No. 1 the said account is to be operated jointly by G.L. Bhatia and Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No. 1. One bearer Cheque bearing No. 425395 dated August 26, 1992 for a sum of ₹ 95,000/ - was drawn on the appellant-bank. The said cheque was encashed at the said branch of the appellant-bank on August 26, 1992 and the amount of ₹ 95,000/- was debited to the account of respondent No. 1. The case of the appellant-bank is that the said amount was paid to one Jadhav, whose signatures were appended at the back of the cheque, and who was an employee of respondent No. 1. The said cheque admittedly contains the signatures of G.L. Bhatia. The other sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court wherein it has been prayed as under: (a) Writ of mandamus or a Writ or Order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Petitioner bank to reverse the debit entry dated 26.8.1992 for ₹ 95,000/- in their Current A/C No. 318 or direct the petitioner Bank to make payment of the respondent No. 1 Company herein of a sum of ₹ 95,000/ - with interest thereon at the rate of 18% from the date of the said amount had been withdrawn from the account. (b) to direct the Petitioner herein to credit a sum of ₹ 95,000/- in the current account No. 318 during the pendency of the Writ Petition on the respondent No. 1 herein furnishing an indemnity for the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gives undertaking to bring back the amount if Court so desires. We have perused all papers and prima facie we are satisfied that the Bank did not take precautions before making payment of large amount. The fact that cheque was forged is not in dispute and the complaint filed by the Manager before the police nowhere claims that payment was made to any employee of the petitioners. The affidavit filed by R.V. Pinglay the cashier appears to be prima facie false and an afterthought. 6. In accordance with the said order of he High Court the appellant-bank credited a sum of ₹ 95,000/- to the account of respondent No. 1 on July 9, 1993. From the counter-affidavit of capt. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal filed on behalf of respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utions before making payment of large amount and the fact that cheque was forged is not in dispute and that the affidavit filed by R.V. Pinglay appears to be prima facie false and an afterthought. It has been pointed out that in the correspondence with respondent No. 1 the appellant-bank did not accept the contention of respondent No. 1 that one of the signatures of the joint signatories, namely, Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No. 1, was forged and further that the case of the appellant-bank is that the payment of the cheque was made in the ordinary course of business and that the procedure for honouring the cheque by the bank officials was correctly followed in the matter of encashment of the cheque. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of this Court in Bihta Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd., and Anr. v. The Bank of Bihar and Ors. [1967]1SCR848 and Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corporation and Ors. [1987]2SCR1138 . 10. Since the Writ Petition is still pending in the High Court and the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition has yet to be considered we do not propose to go into the said question. All that we wish to say at this stage is that the objections that have been raised by the appellant-bank against the maintainability of the writ petition are not such that they may be disregarded as lacking in substance. This is a factor which has a bearing on the exercise of discretion by the Court while passing the interim order in the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e passed an interim order giving such a direction. In the circumstances we are unable to uphold that said interim order passed by the High Court. 14. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the interim order passed by the High Court regarding crediting the sum of ₹ 95,000/ - in the current account No. 318 of the respondents is set aside. Since the appellant-bank has already deposited the said amount of ₹ 95,000/- in the current account of respondents in pursuance of the said directions of the High Court it is directed that the respondents will refund the said amount to the appellant-bank within a period of one month and on their failure to do so the High Court will take steps to enforce the undertaking that has been furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
