Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Agro Oils Pvt.Ltd. vs Icici Bank on 31 March, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No.3607 of 2008
Between:-
SHRI OM AGRO OILS PVT. LTD. (A
COMPANIES ACT ) THROUGH MANAGING
DIRECTOR SHRI VIJAY KUMAR
KAKWANI, REGISTERED OFFICE, A-B
ROAD, GIRWAINAKA, GWALIOR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ICICI BANK, THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ICICI BANK,
HEAD OFFICE LINK MARK RACE
COURSE CIRCLE BADOA.
2. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK, PADAV
BRANCH, GWALIOR.
3. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH
MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
VISHAKHAPATNAM MAIN BRANCH
(ANDHRA PRADESH )
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SURESH AGARWAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 07/02/2023
Delivered on 31/03/2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following:
ORDER
1. The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the in-action on the part of the respondents, whereby they have freezed the operation of the account of the petitioner and thereafter have released the amount by confiscating the amount of Rs.8.5 Lakhs from the accounts of the petitioner and not permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said amount.
2. The facts in the nutshell are the petitioner company for its business purpose had opened an account in ICICI Bank Gwalior. One Sanjay Gupta who is the owner of Kiran Kirana Store, Gaya Bihar has placed an order with the petitioner for supply of 930 tins of mustard oil on 7.2.2008. The said goods were costing Rs.8.5 lakhs and the petitoner has demanded the 3 amount in advance. Upon asking Sanjay Gupta deposited an amount of Rs.8.5 Lakhs vide Demand Draft's No.979985, 979986 which were deposited in the account of Petitioner with I.C.I.C.I Bank on 9.2.2008. The said amount was duly credited after clearing on 13.2.2008. The drafts were issued by the Central Bank of India Bhiringamore, West Bengal, Branch payable at Vishakhapatnam Branch. On 22.2.2008 Sanjay Gupta the owner of Kiran Kirana Store asked for sending of the goods as the amount was credited in the accounts of the petitioner. Upon this vide bill No.380/FEB2Q8 dated 24.2.2008 930 tins of mustard oil of Telephone Brand were dispatched by the petitioner through Truck bearing Registration No.UP75 9491 of Gupta Transport Company and Commission Agent Itawa and these articles were received by Kiran Kirana Store and the transaction was complete. However, on 3.5.2008 all of a sudden after 18 months of this transaction Branch Manager of I.C.I.C.I. Branch and Branch Manager of Central Bank of India Vishakhapatnam Branch informed the petitioner that the drafts which have been deposited in the account of the petitioner through Core Banking in Central Bank of India, Vishakhapatnam Branch and duly credited in the account of the petitioner at I.C.I.C.I. Bank has been found to be forged draft. Upon this I.C.I.C.I. Bank has seized the account of the petitoner. The seizure of the said account has resulted in 4 bouncing of various cheques including the cheque which has been placed by the petitioner under service tax and BSNL. Thereafter illegally the account was stopped with effect from 6.5.2008 to 19.5.2008 and after that when the account was defreezed Rs.8.5. Lakhs has been directed to be kept under safe custody and the petitioner was prohibited from using that amount which is his own amount and since the said action is barred under the law and is not permissible as it is effecting the rights of the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemtly argued that even if it is presumed that the drafts were forged and fraud has been played it can be attributable to the Bank who has issued the draft which is Central Bank of India, Vishakapatnam and the petitioner is no where involved and responsible in the matter. It was further argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Canara Sales Corporations and others, AIR 1987 SC 1603 has laid down that the Banking Authorities are having no power to prevent a person from using its accounts without adopting the due process of law and account cannot be freezed nor its operation can be stopped, thus, it has been argued that the action of the Bank in freezing the accounts as well as preventing the petitioner from withdrawing Rs.8.5. Lakhs is impermissible under the law and is perse illegal. Thus, prayed for directions for the respondents to revoke the bar 5 which has been placed over the operation of the accounts fixing the limit kept in the account Rs.8.5 Lakhs and the said amount be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner with interest thereon.
4. Though none has appeared on behalf of the respondents Bank, but from the reply it appears that on 3.5.2008 Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Gwalior has wrote a letter to the I.C.I.C.I Bank regarding the drafts which were submitted for clearance, were found forged and requested to mark lien and immediately stop payment of above drafts which were paid on 13.2.2008. On reconciliation it was found that the said demand drafts were not issued by Bhiringamore Branch, West Bengal. Therefore, it was requested before I.C.I.C.I Bank to create a lien of full amount of Rs.8.50 Lakhs and refund the amount to the Central Bank immediately. The record further revealed that Demand Draft No.979985 dated 4.3.2008 was issued in favour of NIT Durgapur for Rs.100/- only and Draft No.979986 dated 10.3.2008 was issued in favour of Dutch Bank Mumbai NBO for Rs.785/-. Thus as and when the fraud came to the knowledge of issuing Bank and did not tally with the Demand Draft as issued by Bhiringamore Branch the said was communicated to the I.C.I.C.I. Bank for creating lien and stop payment of the above amount and refund of the same.
6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the 6 record.
7. The only contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he had received the aforesaid demand drafts in lieu of his supplying goods to one Kiran Kirana Store Gaya Bihar and he had no knowledge about the forgery which had been committed. He being the victim could not be saddled with such a penalty as on one hand he had already parted with the goods and on the other hand he has not received the consideration amount, though it is lying in the Bank. However, contention of the petitioner is that forgery has been committed on the part of some bank officials for which he is not responsible and there is no legal way available with the respondent Bank to freeze the account or to limit the account with a minimum balance of Rs.8.5. Lakhs. But apart from mere contentions and arguments no legal provisions has been shown which would restrict the banks from initiating such action. It is also true that the person responsible for the entire situation i.e. the proprietry of Kiran Kirana Store, Gaya Bihar Sanjay Gupta was not made a party to the present petition who would have been the best person to have explained about the alleged fraud committed with the petitioner. The averments which has been made by the respondent no.3 in its reply as well as respondents no.1 and 2 that the demand drafts N.979985 and 979986 were issued in the names of some other party were 7 issued though confronted to the petitioner, but there in response to it even in his rejoinder and this Court finds that since the transaction which has taken place between the petitioner and Kiran Kirana Store, Gaya Bihar is purely of a private nature without there being any involvement of the respondent Bank in any way, no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Further there appears to be disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, the petition being sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
Pawar/- 31/03/2023
ASHISH PAWAR
2023.04.06
12:11:58
+05'30'