Punjab & Sind Bank vs Sarabjit Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 1969 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   LPA 206/2009 & CM No. 6689/2009

        PUNJAB & SIND BANK                              ..... Appellant
                        Through:      Mr. Rajender Wali, Advocate.
                  versus

        SARABJIT SINGH                                 ..... Respondent
                          Through:    None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 11.05.2009

1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 23rd March, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the

present case are as follows:-

2. The respondent (original petitioner in the writ petition) was an

employee with the appellant Bank (original respondent No. 1 in the

writ petition). An FIR was lodged by the appellant Bank alleging

irregularities and commission of offence by the respondent. At the

Bank's behest, the respondent deposited with the Bank a total

amount of Rs.3,17,256.82 on different dates between 6th February,

1985 and 4th March, 1985. These sums were kept under lien of the

Bank pending criminal proceedings. On 9th March, 2007, the

respondent was acquitted by the criminal court. The judgment and

acquittal recorded by the court was not carried in appeal and the

same, therefore, become final.

3. The respondent was constrained to file the writ petition out of

which the present appeal has arisen calling upon Bank to release the

amount deposited by the respondent. During the pendency of the

case, the appellant Bank paid to the respondent a sum of

Rs.5,66,797.02. It was contended by the respondent that the

amount awarded over and above the principal amount deposited with

the Bank, if appropriated towards interest, worked out to

approximately 3.25% per annum, which is far below the market rate.

As per the respondent, he was entitled to normal market rate of

interest which the appellant Bank would have paid to all other

similarly placed individuals who had maintained accounts and kept

sums deposited with it. On the other hand, it was the contention of

the appellant Bank that the amounts were kept in the respondent's

savings bank account and, therefore, whatever sums were earned

were duly credited and it had no obligation to pay market rate or any

higher rate of interest.

4. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that at the stage

when the respondent was required to deposit the amount, there was

no binding obligation upon him to do so. The learned Single Judge

correctly took note of the fact that the appellant Bank having asked

the respondent to deposit various sums of amounts, pending the

outcome of the criminal proceedings, ought to have taken steps to

ensure that they were maintained in interest bearing deposits so that

in the event of a favourable decision, the respondent would have

enjoyed the benefit of not only the principal amount but the interest

accruals that would have naturally arisen. The fact that the Bank

chose not to take such steps, which would have ultimately resulted in

full restitution, was not a justification for it to deny its liability. The

learned Single Judge thus, in our view, correctly held that the Bank

was liable to pay higher rate of interest. The learned Single Judge

has correctly awarded the different/higher rates of interest for the

period 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1995 and for the period 1st April,

1995 to 6th November, 2008. The sums of interest have been directed

to be paid after adjusting the interest component already paid to the

respondent on 6th November, 2008.

5. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

The same is just, equitable and in accordance with law and does not

warrant any interference by this Court. The appellant Bank cannot

hold on to the respondent's money for such a long period of time

without taking any steps to ensure that the amount was maintained

in an interest bearing deposit. The stand of the appellant Bank is

completely unreasonable and unfair. Further there is complete lack

of prudence in the actions of the appellant Bank.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for the reasons stated

hereinabove. CM No. 6689/2009 stand disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 11, 2009 Sb/RS