Judgment :

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.–

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai is right in debiting the Appellant's EEFC A/c EURO No. 10937619705 an amount of 136,027.03, after a long lapse of time, on the ground that it was wrongly deposited in the Appellant's account and driving the Appellant to recover the amount by way of civil proceedings.

3. Writ Petition Under Article 226 was filed by the Appellant challenging the action of the Bank which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it is a dispute which arose out of a contractual relationship between the parties and hence the appropriate remedy for the Appellant was by way of a civil suit and not a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by way of special leave.

4. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the remedy available to the Appellant is to approach the civil court since the dispute arose is of contractual nature. Learned senior Counsel submitted tha