TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued by M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., for stopping the payment referring to some dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods supplied by the petitioner. Though the receipt of such letter was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 03.04.2012, as explained in the counter affidavit, it appears, they have not uploaded it in the system for stop-payment alert, and due to the same, by oversight, the cheque, which was presented by the petitioner, was honoured and the amount was credited to his account. In view of the letter dated 02.04.2012, which was received by the 3rd respondent on 03.04.2012, it is a mistaken transfer, which falls within the scope of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, as per which, a person to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. The petitioner is an account holder in the 2nd respondent-Bank with account No.022302210002513. It is the case of the petitioner that when he presented the cheque issued by M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, the said cheque was honoured and an amount of Rs.24,15,365/- was transferred to his account, and subsequently, he issued cheques to third parties towards the amounts payable by him, but, when the cheque bearing No.577858, dated 05.05.2012, for Rs.11,40,200/-, issued by the petitioner came for scrutiny, it was dishonoured stating that the account was freezed. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that when the cheque issued by M/s. Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd. was already honoured and suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has issued instructions for stopping the payment, objected to the action of respondent-bank in passing the cheque issued in favour of petitioner and filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai, before whom, he has explained about crediting of amount in the petitioner's account by mistake and oversight, upon which, the Banking Ombudsman passed an award, dated 07.09.2012. In the counter, it is further stated that in view of the mistaken entry of transfer in favour of petitioner contrary to the instructions given by M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, and in view of the award of the Banking Ombudsman, the account of the petitioner was frozen. It is stated that by the time the account of the petitioner was frozen, pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the said date, M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, which has issued the said cheque to the petitioner, has issued letter, dated 02.04.2012, which was received by the 3rd respondent on 03.04.2012, for stopping the payment. It is stated that the bank has committed a mistake by not uploading it in the system for stop-payment alert, and due to oversight, when the petitioner has presented the cheque for payment, the bank passed the said cheque and credited an amount of Rs.24,15,365/- to the account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman, and in view of the instructions issued by M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., the account of the petitioner was freezed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or freezing the account of the petitioner. Even by that time, certain amounts were already withdrawn by the petitioner, and only an amount of Rs.11,70,102/- was lying to the credit of his account at Guntur branch. It is also to be noticed that in this case, when the 3rd respondent-bank has failed to comply with the stop- payment instructions issued by M/s. Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., the said Firm has also approached the Banking Ombudsman, who passed the award dated 07.09.2012, to the effect that UCO Bank shall credit-back the amount to the current account of the complainant with immediate effect along with interest at savings bank rate from the date of wrong debit till the date of crediting. In the award, there was a direction to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Rangappa (2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 734 (SC), the issue involved in the said case relates to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-bank in the case of S.Kotrabasappa V. The Indian Bank AIR 1987 KARNATAKA 236, would support the case of 3rd respondent. In the aforesaid judgment, while interpreting the scope of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is held that when there is a mistaken credit in the account of a person by the Bank, such person is bound to repay or return such amount and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
