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 that since the State Bank of India is a nationalized bank and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition Under Article 226 is maintainable and the bank has no legal right to reverse a legal entry after having credited the same in the Appellant's account. Learned senior Counsel submitted that, in any view, without obtaining the consent of the Appellant, the entry should not have been reversed. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation AIR 1967 SC 96. Learned senior Counsel also submitted that the writ petition is perfectly maintainable and the reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in ABL International Limited and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 2 of 23 and Shri Vallabh Glass Works Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 362.

5. Shri J.P. Cama, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-bank, explained the circumstances which led to the bank in reversing the entry. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the amount credited in the Appellant's account is not its, but the amount exclusively belonged to the Bank, which was deposited in the Appellant's account by mistake, and hence could be recovered debiting its account, which is a normal banking practice and was done in good faith. Learned senior Counsel submitted that only when the Bank debits an amount which exclusively belongs to the account holder, then only the bank needs consent of the account holder. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the Bank had a lien on the amount deposited in the Appellant's account and it is that which could be debited from the Appellant's account. Learned senior Counsel submitted that, in any view, the High Court is justified in holding that even if the Appellant has any grievance, the same could be remedied only through a regular civil suit and not by way of writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

6. The Appellant, in the course of its business activities, exported steel coils to M/s. Abdul Zafar Ghulam at Nacala, in Mozambique (for short 'the importer') in August 2006 and raised an 25.08.2006. Appellant received part payment in relation to the above-mentioned invoice on 18.10.2006, 20.10.2006, 08.11.2006 and 17.11.2006, on the basis of the credit advice raised by the SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai from time to time. On 02.11.2006 the Appellant was 7.M The Appellant stated that after two and a half years on 07.03.2009 State Bank of India, umbai, sent a letter to the Appellant with reference to the credit entry of US 199,959.74 dated 02.11.2006 to Appellant ECFC account and advised that credit was erroneously passed on