Rishi Raj vs Punjab & Sind Bank
2017 Latest Caselaw 780 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 1153/2017 & C.M. Nos. 5258-59/2017.
       RISHI RAJ                                             ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi with
                            Mr. Shariq Ansari and Mr. Abhilash Attri,
                            Advocates.

                            versus

       PUNJAB & SIND BANK                        ..... Respondent
                     Through : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                    ORDER

% 10.02.2017

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent/Bank to refund a sum of Rs.81,02,750/- deposited by him along with interest @ 24% from the date of deposit, till realisation.

2. The petitioner claims that in the earlier petition filed by him against respondent/Bank [WP(C) 6584/2008], counsel for the petitioner had stated that he had made a representation to the respondent/Bank for refund of the said amount, but the Bank had not considered it. Accordingly, the respondent/Bank was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and give a response. Learned counsel states that thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 11.2.2009, but the same was not replied to by the respondent/Bank.

3. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears

on advance notice, starts by submitting that the post dated cheque of Rs.1 crores that the petitioner had deposited with the respondent/Bank was dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. As for the representation dated 11.2.2009 submitted by the petitioner to respondent/Bank, the same was duly considered and replied to vide letter dated 01.4.2009 dispatched by registered post. She hands over a copy of the aforesaid letter addressed by the respondent/Bank to the petitioner with a copy furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision conveyed by the respondent/Bank in the said letter then, he is at liberty to seek his remedies, as per law. At that time, the court will examine the plea taken by counsel for the respondent/Bank as to the gross delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court for relief.

5. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

FEBRUARY 10, 2017 ap