Petitioner filed a writ petition mandamus seeking immediate credit of stolen cheque amount to its account. The Court dismissed the writ as the bank could not be held liable for the theft and no deficiency in service was found.
Relief sought for immediate credit of Rs. 8,07,000/- was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6630 OF 2007
M/s. Rajaram Construction
Through its Proprietor
Ramesh R. Bhekre. .. Petitioner.
vs.
Industrial Development
Bank of India. .. Respondent.
Mr. Sagar Joshi for Petitioner.
Mr. P.A. Gokhale i/by M.P. Rege & Co. for respondent.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE: 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C.
. Heard.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court for seeking a writ of
mandamus against the respondent bank (nationalised
bank) to credit an amount of Rs. 8,07,000/- forthwith
in the current account of the petitioner being Current
2
Account No. 2368 with interest at the rate of 9% from
29.1.2007 on which day the cheques were deposited till
the aforesaid amount is actually credited. It appears
that after the cheques were deposited with the Bank,
they were found to be stolen which delayed the same
being credited in the account of the petitioner. The
aforesaid fact is not disputed.
3. In the given facts and circumstances it cannot
be said that the respondent bank can be held liable for
the delay in crediting the account of the petitioner
with the amount of cheques deposited by the petitioner
as the same were stolen.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank
informs this Court that on lodging the FIR the accused
persons have been arrested and they are prosecuted in
the Court of Magistrate at Thane which also indicates
that the Bank has taken diligent steps in the matter.
5. Further, the correspondence between the parties
is also placed before us which shows that the Bank
cannot be faulted with the delay in crediting the
amount of the cheque deposited by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Bank credited the account with the amount of
the cheques only after the petitioner approached this
Court by filing a writ petition which is strongly
3
refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. It
is submitted that the matter was under process and as
soon as it was resolved the Bank wrote to the
petitioner conveying their decision to credit the
account with the amount of cheques deposited by the
Petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances
we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary
jurisdiction. If the petitioner is so sensitive about
the deficiency in service, it is open for the
petitioner to seek alternative remedy .
7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(J.N. Patel, J. )
(A.A. Sayed, J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to credit a stolen amount to the petitioner's account
Whether the respondent bank can be held liable for the delay in crediting the amount of cheques deposited
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition
M/s. Rajaram Construction Through its Proprietor Ramesh R. Bhekre
Industrial Development Bank of India
J.N. Patel
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court