Delhi High Court - Orders
Meghaaarika Impex Pvt Ltd vs Union Bank Of India on 9 February, 2022
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
Via Video Conferencing
$~1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11378/2021
MEGHAAARIKA IMPEX PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal
Sachdeva, Ms. Anubha Surana and
Mr. Paras Mithal, Advs.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nazia Praveen, Adv.
(2)
+ W.P.(C) 11379/2021
RITZY CHEMICALS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal
Sachdeva, Ms. Anubha Surana and
Mr. Paras Mithal, Advs.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nazia Praveen, Adv.
(3)
+ W.P.(C) 11522/2021
PCL OIL AND SOLVENTS LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal
Sachdeva, Ms. Anubha Surana and
Mr. Paras Mithal, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location:
Signing Date:10.02.2022
17:04:30
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nazia Praveen, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 09.02.2022 CM APPL. 37990/2021 (direction by petitioner) in W.P.(C) 11378/2021 CM APPL. 37643/2021(direction by petitioner) in W.P.(C) 11379/2021 CM APPL. 37976/2021(direction by petitioner) in W.P.(C) 11522/2021 CM APPL. 38830/2021 (Clarification by respondent) in W.P.(C) 11378/2021 CM APPL. 38562/2021 (Clarification by respondent) in W.P.(C) 11379/2021 CM APPL. 38954/2021 (Clarification by respondent) in W.P.(C) 11522/2021
1. The present applications being CM APPL. 37990/2021, CM APPL. 37463/2021 and CM APPL. 37976/2021 have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent to return the six cheques bearing No. 0800, 0801, 0802, 0803, 581487 & 72060 along with the return memos as had been undertaken by them before this Court on 06.10.2021 when the petitions were disposed of on the basis of this assurance.
2. Though no reply has been filed, the respondent has instead preferred applications seeking clarification of the order dated 06.10.2021. Keeping in view the fact that both the set of applications are seeking directions in respect of the respondent's assurance given to this Court to return the six cheques along with the return memos, all the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:10.02.2022 17:04:30 applications are taken up for consideration together.
3. It is the petitioners' case, which is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioners had deposited the aforesaid six cheques with the respondent bank on 17.02.2021 but the cheque amount was neither credited to the petitioners' account nor were the cheques returned to them with the requisite return memos. On 06.12.2021, when the petitions were taken up for consideration, the respondent had assured the Court that the six cheques in question would be duly returned to the petitioner along with the return memos. However, it later transpired that the cheques had actually not been deposited in the account of the drawer who was also maintaining its bank account with the respondent, on account of specific "stop payment instructions"
issued by the drawer.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that once, stop payment instructions had already been received from the drawer, no purpose would have been served in depositing the cheques in the drawer's bank account which is maintained with the respondent bank itself.
5. He further submits that when the cheques are required to be processed through in-house clearing in a case where the account of, both the petitioner and the drawer are maintained in the same bank, as a practice, no re-presenting is normally done when stop payment instructions have already been received from the drawer.
6. Mr. Sagar further submits that bank has always been ready and willing to issue a certificate to the petitioners in this regard clearly stating that the cheques were not re-presented in the drawer's bank account due to the specific stop payment instructions already received Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:10.02.2022 17:04:30 from the drawer.
7. In the light of the aforesaid explanation given by the respondent, I am of the view that the prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondent to return the cheques along with the requisite return memos cannot be allowed. However, the respondent is directed to forthwith return all the six cheques to the petitioners along with a separate certificate for each of the six cheques clearly stating therein that the cheques be treated as being dishonoured on account of stop payment instructions already received from the drawer. The cheques along with said certificate will be issued to the petitioners within two weeks from today.
8. Needless to state, the limitation for the petitioners to initiate any action against the drawer will commence from the date of issuance of the certificate by the respondent.
9. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J FEBRUARY 9, 2022 ms Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:10.02.2022 17:04:30