Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Madhabi Chakraborty vs United Bank Of India & Ors on 24 December, 2019
1
U/L
24.12.2019
mb
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. No. 23918 (W) of 2019
Smt. Madhabi Chakraborty
-Vs.-
United Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty,
Mr. Pankaj Agarwal,
Mr. Jibantaraj Dan Roy,
Ms. Paramita Maity
...for the petitioner
Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharya,
Mr. Fazlul Haque
...for the respondent no. 2
The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the petitioner having presented two demand drafts to her own banker, being the respondent no. 3, the respondent nos. 1 and 2, being the drawee banks, refused to pay up. Upon query, it was learnt that the ground given by the drawee banks was that the demand drafts were lost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no payment can immediately be directed without hearing the private respondents, but the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to be 2 restrained from returning the amounts due in respect of the drafts to the private respondents.
Despite service, none appears for the respondent no. 1, although the respondent no. 2 is represented through counsel in Court today.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that, pursuant to a communication by the person who purchased the demand drafts, the amount due in lieu of demand drafts was refunded to the loan account of the purchaser. As such, there is no scope for the bank to hold its hands at present in that regard, since it is too late in the day to do that.
It appears prima facie that the petitioner has made out a good case as to the refund of such amount, merely on the ground of the demand drafts having allegedly been lost by the purchaser, is not a valid ground under the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.
Guideline no. 3.5 of the Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated December 12, 1998, which is placed by tlearned counsel for the petitioner, throws light in that regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also cites a Division Bench judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), reported at AIR 1992 MP 148 (Raghavendrasingh Bhadoria vs. State Bank of Indore and Others), wherein it was also laid down, 3 under what circumstances, the payment of bank drafts can be refused. Loss of demand draft is not one of such grounds.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their affidavit(s)-in-opposition to this writ petition within January 08, 2020. Replies thereto, if any, to be filed by the petitioner within January 15, 2020.
The matter will be taken up for hearing on January 18, 2020. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 are restrained from dealing with the amount recovered by the demand drafts-in-question in the meantime and not to operate their loan account in so far as the quantum of such demand drafts are concerned. The same would be subject to the result of the writ petition.
The petitioner is directed to serve copies afresh on the respondent nos. 3 to 8, indicating the order passed today, and to file a fresh affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
The receipt of the notice served on the respondent no. 1 filed in Court today be kept on record.
Service on the respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of appearance through learned counsel.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)