ORDER:— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appellants Writ Petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of facts which could be determined by the Civil Court in a suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record we find that the case does not involve any disputed questions of facts instead on admitted facts the appellant is entitled to relief.

3. The appellant is the Sub-Distributors of M/ s. Unimech Appliances, it has a Current Account No. 525 with the Indian Bank, Barkatpura Branch, Hyderabad. The appellant had been depositing money through cheques in its Current Account from time to time. During the period 15-1-87 to 13-5-87 the appellant had deposited cheques in the Indian Bank, the amounts under those were realised by the Bank and credited to the a appellants account but later on a sum of Rs. 12.95 lacs was transferred to the account of the respondent- M/ s. Unimech Appliances. The appellant protested the transfer of the aforesaid amount on the ground that it had never authorised the Bank for transferring the amount to respondents account. On the appellants protest the Bank by its letter dated 21-12-1987 informed the appellant that the transfer had been made in an unauthorised manner and the same will be recredited to its account within two months. The letter runs as under:-

"Indian Bank Barkatpura, Hyderabad

Dated: 21-12-1987

M/s. Hyderabad Commercials, Hyderabad.

Dear Sir,

We have today to inform you that we have unauthorisedly debited your account from Jan., 87 to June, 87 on various dates which will be recredited back to your account within 60 days time.

We regret very much for the inconvenience caused in this regard.

Yours faithfully,

For INDIAN BANK

Sd/- x x x

Accountant/ Manager."

Under the aforesaid letter the Bank admitted that the transfer of the disputed amount had been made by the Bank in an unauthorised manner and it further admitted its liability to pay back the amount to the appellant. By another letter Dated 21-12-1987 (Annexure V to the SLP) the Bank reiterated that the amounts which were Transferred from the appellants account on various dates between January, 1987 to June, 1987 will be credited to its account for which no consent letter had been received from the appellant. In spite of its admission of liability and assurance to recredit the disputed amount to the appellants account the Bank failed to honour its commitment. Ultimately, the appellant filed a Writ Petition for the issue of mandamus directing the respondent Bank, a Nationalised Bank for the issue of a direction to the Bank to deposit the disputed amount in its account. The Indian Bank resisted the appellants claim on a strange plea that the disputed amount had been transferred to the respondents account on oral instructions of the appellant. As noted earlier the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the case involved disputed questions of facts.

4. The facts as noted earlier make it amply clear that the Bank had transferred the disputed amount of Rs. 12.95 lacs from the appellants account to the account of respondent M/s. Unimech Appliances. There is, further, no dispute that the Bank admitted that it had made the transfer in an unauthorised manner without obtaining any instruction or authority from the appellant and it accepted its liability to recredit the amount to the appellants account. On such admission the Bank. which is an instrumentality of the State was under a legal obligation to pay back the disputed amount to the appellant. Initially the Bank accepted its mistake and admits its liability and assured the appellant to credit the, amount to its account but later on it resiled and raised a strange plea of oral authority simply with a view to defeat the appellants claim. It is difficult to believe that a sum of Rs. 12.95 lacs could be transferred to the account of an other pers