Dismissed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024WP/12096/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a bank seeking reinstatement of funds withheld by a respondent bank due to alleged fraud. The Court observed that the respondent bank had already deposited the amount in the petitioner's account pursuant to an interim order, and thus deemed it appropriate to dismiss the main petition, leaving protection to the indemnity bond provided

What the court decided

AI extract

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY .THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12096^{OF 2016}

¶8

Between:

¶9

lndian Overseas Bank, Viiaya^{Hospital Branch, ChennaiVadalapani,Chennai} Rep. by its Manager

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, rep. by its^{Home Secretary. Ministry of HomeAffairs} Government of lndia, North^{Block Parliament Bhavan,New Delhi - 110 001'} 2. Central Bureau of lnvestigation,^{Anti CorruptionBranch, rep. by-itsDeputy} lnspector General of Police 3rd^{Floor. KendriyaSadan, Sultan Bazar Koti,} Hyderabad - 500 095. e S(ation House Officer, Police^{Station, Malakajgiri, rep by its lnspectorof} Police Malkajgiri, Cyberabad,^Hyderabad.. . +. rj[inmi Vitdi ean'k,^{rep. by its Branch Manager WestMarredpallyBranc.h,} Siieet No 13 Lepakdhi^{'Colony, Aswini -ColonyWestMarredpally,} Secunderabad - 500 026

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Artrcle 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or Direction, more particularly one in} the nature of writ of Mandamus,^{declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in} withholding the amount of^{Rs.95.00lakhs at the instance of the Respondents} No.2 and 3 transferred under^{RTGS to theaccount bearing} No.0815351000000250 of^{M/s.central Marketing, Hyderabadwithout there being} any lawful proceedings by any^{of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as illegal, arbitrary} and contrary to law and consequently^{direct the Respondent No.4 to remit back} the amount of Rs.95,00 lakhs^{received through RTGS on 27.11.2015as if it is} sent by M|s.TUFIDCO in^{favour of M/s.central Marketing,Hyderabadin the} alleged beneficiary account^{of Mis.central Marketing, Hyderabad and to declare} that the letter dt.02.12.2015^{issued by the 3rd respondent to 4th respondent do}

¶15

not apply to the amount of Rs.95.00^{lakhs sent by Writ PetitionerBank on} 27 .11.2015 by RTGS in the account^{of CentralMarketing, Hyderabad}

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 15165^{OF 2016)}

¶17

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent No.4 to^{remit back the amount of Rs.95.00 lakhs received} through RTGS on^27.04.2015as if^{it sent by IrI/s-TUFIDCO in favour of} M/s.Central Marketing, Hyderabad to^{the Writ petitioner branch forthwith without} reference to the letter dt.02.12.2015^{sent by the V Respondent to 4th} Respondent,^pending disposal^{of the main Writ Petition}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{E. MADAN MOHAN RAO}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^{GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶20

DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI P' KESAVA RAO}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP^{FOR HOME}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:-

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

r /.

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY WRIT PETITION No L2O96 of 2016

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition, under^{Article 226 of tt.e Constitution of} India, is filed seeking to declare^{the action of respondentNo.4 in} withholding the amount of^{Rs.95,00,000/ - at the instance of} respondent Nos.2 and 3 transferred^{underRTGS to the account} bearing No.815351O00O0O250^{as illegal, arbitrary and contrar5r} to law and consequently^{prayedto direct respondent No.4 to} remit Rs.95,0O,OO0/- received through^{RTGS and for other} appropriate relief.

¶29

Petitioner is the Indian Overseas^{Bank incorporatedunder} the Banking Companies^{(Acquisition andTransferof} Undertakings) Act, 1970.^{It is statedthat the petitioner has its} central office at 763, Anna^{Salai, Chennai and it has a branch} at Vadapalani, Chennai in^{the name of Vijaya Hospital Branch,} Chennai, where the Tamilnadu^{UrbanFinance and} Infrastructure Development Corporation^{Limited, known as} TUFIDCO, opened a current account^{bearing No.900 on} 25.11.2015. It is the further case^{of the petitioner that from the} said account, an amount of Rs.95,OO,0OO/^{- was transferred}

¶30

)

¶31

CVBR,J wp- 12096_2016

¶32

--,t

¶33

through RTGS to respondent No.4-bank i.e., Lakshmi Vilas Bank. It is the further case of the petitioner that soon after coming to know that TUFIDCO has been involved in fraud transactions and remitting the amount to respondent No.4-bank through the petitioner-bank, it had addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to conduct enquiry on remitting of the amount on 27.11.2015 to the tune of Rs.95,00,O00/- transferred through RTGS and for recovery of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not remitted the amount transferred to its account. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the said amount and take steps to remit the same.

¶34

This Court, uide order dated 26.04.2016 directed respondent No.4 to release the said amount of Rs.95,00,O00/to the account of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemniqr bond to respondent No.4 in the event of any claim by any person in respect of the subject transaction.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that in terms of the interim order granted by this Court on 26.04.2016, respondent No.4 has remitted/deposited

¶36

CvDR,J wp 12096 20 t6

¶37

¶38

the amount into the account of the petitioner and there are no claims whatsoever against respondent No.4.

¶39

In view of the specific submission that respondent No.4 has already deposited the amount into the account of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open to respondent No.4, if it is having any claim in pursuance of the indemnity bond furnished by the pe titioner-bank, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶40

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶41

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/- K

¶44

¶45

ASSISTANT RE //TRUE COPYII

¶46

SECTIO FFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

The Home Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Home Affa irs Government of lndia, North Block Parliament Bhavan, New Delhi -^.l 10 001.

¶49

The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Central Bureau of lnvestigation, Anti Corruption Branch, 3rd Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.

¶50

The lnspector of Police Station House Offlcer, Police Station, Malakajgiri, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶51

One CC to SRl. E. MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEENKUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

One CC to SRl. P. KESAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

B Two CD Copies

BM lq

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

-( t1 t:
s I4 r(-
(
11 IEI 202 4
ti c
-at
*
€
r)f,sp^TCH

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.12096 of 2016

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

Y* cF,v \C

Indian Overseas Bank v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Indian Overseas Bank v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perla Linga Swamy, Vs The Union of India

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, represented by its PrI. Secretary

Mr. Yugandhar Meka Vs Union of India

Kanukula Laxma Reddy, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Prabhakar Vuppala, Vs The Union of India

K. Kusama Kumar Reddy, Secad and 2 Othrs Vs Govt. of a.P., Revenue Dept., Hyd and 2 Othrs