SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Vishal Bali – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6576 Of 2021
Decided On : 04-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Deepak Menaria.
For the Respondents: A.R. Choudhary, P.P., Dhanpat Choudhary, Lalit Kumar Purohit.

Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 70 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Unauthorized transfer of funds - Petitioner, a businessman, alleged misappropriation of Rs. 88,000/- from his bank account due to an unsolicited call. The amount was transferred to accounts at multiple banks without his authorization. The court directed the respondents to transfer Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- back to the petitioner on the condition of executing a solvent surety and undertaking in case of future claims. (Paras 2, 5, 8)

(B) Liability of banks - Banks may release unclaimed funds to the account holder subject to conditions, especially when there are no claims from any third party regarding those funds. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner received misleading calls leading to unauthorized transfers from his account totaling Rs. 88,000/-, subsequently frozen in various banks.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there had been no claims made by any party regarding the misappropriated amounts in question and thus directed the return of the specific amounts from two banks to the petitioner's account with conditions attached.

Issues: The key issues included the liability of banks in unauthorized fund transfers and conditions for releasing funds back to the account holder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for banks to ensure proper verification in transactions and outlined the conditional release of funds back to the petitioner while handling any potential future claims.

Result: Miscellaneous petition disposed of with directions to transfer funds back to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. misappropriation claim and bank transfer request (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. no objection from banks for amount release (Para 4 , 5)
3. details of misappropriated amounts in various banks (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's directive to transfer amounts and conditions (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.) :

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with a very limited prayer that a direction may be issued to respondents No. 2 to 6 to transfer back the misappropriated amount, which was illegally transferred from the petitioner's back account to different back accounts.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a businessman and is running a hotel. On 22.05.2021, the petitioner received a call from three different numbers for booking a hotel room as soon as the petitioner scanned the same, a total amount of Rs. 88,000A was transferred from his bank account to different bank accounts though the petitioner had neither instructed nor made any requisition for the same. The petitioner filed a complaint to the concerned Police Station. Later on, the petitioner came to know that the said amount of Rs. 88,000/- ‘was transferred in accounts at five different banks i.e. Kotak Mahindra, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and Canara Bank. On the request of Enquiry Officer, the Chief Manager of the concerned Banks freeze the bank accounts in which the misappropriated money was transferred.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, no one has made a claim for the said amount, therefore, the respondents Bank may be directed to transfer back the misappropriated amount to his bank account. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking in this regard so also ready to cooperate with the investigation.

4. Notices were issued to the respondents. Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary, Adv. has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank and Mr. L.K. Purohit, Adv. has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 Bank of Baroda. On behalf of other respondents Bank, no one has appeared despite service.

5. Counsel for the respondents Bank submits that till date, no one has appeared to raise a claim in respect of the said amount and the Banks have no objection if the said amount is released in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that in future, if anyone claims for the said amount, so released in favour of the petitioner, then the petitioner shall deposit the same.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In bank account at Kotak Mahindra Bank, a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- was transferred and in bank account at Bank of Baroda, a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- was transferred from the petitioner's account.

8. Admittedly, till date, no one has made a claim in respect of the aforesaid amount, transferred in the respective banks, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondents No. 2 & 3 to transfer back the amount of Rs. 40,000/- & Rs. 25,000/- respectively in the petitioner's bank account, which was misappropriated from his account provided he executes a solvent surety of Rs. 1 lac to the satisfaction of concerned Bank and the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the concerned Bank to the effect that if the amount so transferred back to his account, is claimed by anyone, then he will deposit the same immediately.

The misc. petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top