The judgment established the principle that claims of a bank are not barred by limitation as accrued interest is periodically added to the principal. It also clarified the applicability of the principles of res judicata to decisions made by quasi-judicial bodies under the Consumer Protection Act.

Shivakant Prasad, J.

This is a suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business, inter alia, in retail sale of fabrics and other items. The defendant is a nationalized bank and carries on banking business.

3. Plaintiff issued Refund Warrants to its customers and the customers could encash and obtain refund which the plaintiff agreed to pay to them within six months of the date of issuance thereof and made arrangement with the defendant bank and on 14.1.1984 opened with the Stephen House Branch of the defendant Bank, a cash credit account bearing no. 400016 with a limit of Rs. 9 Crores and also a customer Refund Account No. 404 in the name of the customers of the plaintiff (referred to as the ROB A/c. No. 404) to facilitate smooth encashment of such refund vouchers which would be encashed by all Branches of the defendant bank within the validity period of six months and thereafter, the full particulars of such payment would be obtained by the defendant bank and such particulars would be supplied to the plaintiff for reconciliation and after reconciliation the amount paid by way of such encashment of the refund vouchers would be debited in the said cash credit account of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant bank through its Stephen House Branch, Kolkata sent regular statements to the plaintiff with details of the transactions and copies of the encashed warrants/vouchers disclosing the names of the payees and date and amount of payment, so that the plaintiff could verify and reconcile its own accounts.

5. By a letter dated 13.02.1997 the defendant bank called upon the plaintiff not to issue any further refund voucher. After 28.2.1997 the plaintiff stopped issuing any refund voucher. The defendant bank by its letter dated 17.3.1997 wanted confirmation that no refund voucher was issued after 28.02.1997 and such confirmation was immediately given by the plaintiff but the defendant arbitrarily debited the said ROB A/c. No. 404 to the staggering amount of Rs. 45,55,257.45p in or about 2000 showing a debit balance of Rs. 40,61,232.67p.

6. It is further contended that the defendant bank has not produced any evidence of payment of any sum from the said account after 31.8.1997 despite request by the plaintiff contrary to the guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India and the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

7. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that any debit balance shown by the defendant in the ROB A/c. No. 404 in its Stephen House Branch is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and also prayed for injunction directing the defendant to transfer the cash credit A/c. No. 400016 of the plaintiff maintained in Stephen House Branch being a sum of Rs. 4,94,024.80 and to give effect as on 19.5.1999 and for decree of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-.

8. Defendant has contested the suit contending inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable as barred by the law of limitation and the principle of res-judicata inasmuch as for the same allegations and contentions as contained in the plaint the plaintiff made applications claiming the same reliefs before the State Commission which was dismissed on March 31, 2008 and appeal before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dismissed on January 12, 2009 and so also the review application dismissed on 27th August, 2009 finding no error apparent on the face of record against which Special Leave Petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on December 7, 2000. Then, plaintiff filed Writ Petition in the High Court at Delhi against the orders of January 12, 2009 and August 27, 2009 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

9. Specific contention of the defendant Bank is that at the request of the plaintiff, the ROB A/c. No. 404 was duly closed in due time. The Certificate dated April 20, 1999 and the statement of accoun