JUDGMENT :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. The facts of this case are abominable, shocking and scandalous.

2. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 24.11.2016 passed in an application under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules of this High Court which provides for summary judgments in suits for recovery of a debt or a liquidated demand.

3. The suit is for recovery of money had and received. The cause of action in the plaint is based on two fixed deposits made with the Circus Avenue Branch of the appellant bank for the value of Rs.59 and 61 crores dated 30.08.2012 and 10.01.2013 respectively.

4. The plaintiff is a registered non-banking financial company wholly owned by the Government of West Bengal, primarily involved in providing loans for infrastructure projects in the State of West Bengal. It is alleged in the plaint and the application that the plaintiff had a long-standing relationship with the appellant bank and has maintained various term deposits in different branches of the appellant bank including the said branch. In 2005, an aggregate term deposit of Rs.278 crores was made with the different branches of the appellant bank out of which a term deposit of Rs.9 crores was made with the said branch of the appellant bank. In 2010, a term deposit of Rs.50 crores was also made with the Howrah Branch of the appellant bank which matured on 31.08.2012 and a fresh term deposit was thereafter made with the said branch of the appellant bank.

5. In or about August 2012, the petitioner intended to make a term deposit of Rs.59 crores with a public sector or a private bank for the purpose of creating a fund for one of its bond series. Accordingly, the petitioner approached various banks which submitted offers including their offers for rates of interest for different periods. In the offer letters, some of the branches gave the particulars of their Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) Code number and the Indian Financial System Code (IFSC) which represent a particular bank or branch to which any proposed transfer could be made. The offer letters also contained a particular account number in which such sum could be transferred. In some of the offer letters, the name of the account number was specifically provided as for example, “Yes Bank Limited Account Term Deposit” whereas a number of other offer letters simply provided an account number.

6. It is further alleged in the application, that by a letter dated 30.08.2012 the Circus Avenue branch of the appellant bank provided its rate of interest for creation of bulk deposits in respect of amounts exceeding Rs.10 crores. That letter specifically contained an account number being 08070210000496 and the RTGS Code No.UCBA 0000807 for transfer of funds by way of RTGS to the branch. It is specifically alleged in paragraph 8 (i) of the application that upon receipt of that letter the Senior Manager of the said branch of the appellant bank was contacted via telephone by a representative of the plaintiff and a conversation took place in course of which the details in the letter dated 30.08.2012 provided by the said branch of the appellant bank were verified and confirmed. Since the plaintiff received the highest rates from the said branch of the appellant bank, the plaintiff decided to have the funds transferred by way of RTGS to the said branch of the appellant bank with an intention of making a term deposit of Rs.59 crores.

7. By a letter in writing dated 30.08.2012 the petitioner instructed its bankers namely the Bank of India, Corporate Banking Branch, to transfer an amount of Rs.59 crores from the plaintiff’s existing overdraft account to the account number i.e. 08070210000496 provided by the said branch of the appellant bank in terms of the letter dated 30.08.2012 specifically in the name of the plaintiff as the beneficiary.

8. On the basis of the instructions of the plaintiff, the ban