Delhi High Court
Natraj Polychem Private Limited vs Icici Bank Limited & Ors. on 28 January, 2022
$~39
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.01.2022
+ FAO 21/2022 & CM. APPLS. 4967-69/2022
NATRAJ POLYCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
versus
ICICI BANK LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Chetna Bhalla for R-1.
Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Director of R-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellants impugn award dated 18.01.2022, whereby the
application of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC
has been dismissed.
3. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the subject suit for perpetual
and mandatory injunction directing respondent No1/ICICI Bank
FAO 21/2022 Digitally Signed 1
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Limited to debit the Current Account of M/s. Nepin Impex Ltd.,
respondent No.3 and reverse the transfer erroneously made by the
appellant into the account of respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had
to transfer some funds to M/s. Neelam Trading Company, who is the
agent of ONGC with which the appellant had some transactions and
the said amount of Rs.47,84,496/- had to be transferred.
5. On 29.11.2021, when RTGS was being made, because of an
error on the part of the employee of the appellant, the amount was
requested to be transferred in the name of Ms. Nepin Impex Private
Ltd. instead of M/s. Neelam Trading Company.
6. On realising the mistake, immediately an e-mail and letter were
written to the HDFC Bank as well as to the ICICI Bank Ltd. for
reversal of the said amount. On ICICI Bank Ltd. failing to do so, the
subject suit was filed.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for
respondent No.1 as also by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2, is the
bank of the appellant and is merely a proforma party.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the
amount does not belong to respondent No.3 and a written statement
has been filed specifically stating that they had no amount which was
FAO 21/2022 Digitally Signed 2
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
to be received from the appellant and they have no objection in case
the amount is transferred back to the appellant.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/ICICI Bank Limited submits that the subject suit is a collusive
suit filed by the appellant in collusion with respondent No.3 for the
reason that there is a lien on the bank account of respondent No. 3 of
the Government of Maharashtra as well as Government of Gujarat of
about Rs. 6.68 crores for a recovery to be made against respondent
No.3 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and Gujarat
Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
10. Learned counsel submits that there is a hold put on the said
account, accordingly, the said amount cannot be transferred back.
11. Learned counsel, however, submits that as of now there is no
demand made either by the Government of Maharashtra or the
Government of Gujarat for transmission of any amount standing in the
credit of respondent No.3 to the said entities and the direction is to put
the account on hold.
12. Since there is a dispute as to whether the amount was meant for
M/s Nepin Impex Private Limited or Ms. Neelam Trading Company
and particularly when there is no demand made either by the
Government of Maharashtra or Government of Gujarat to ICICI Bank
Ltd. to transfer the amount to their accounts, it would be appropriate
FAO 21/2022 Digitally Signed 3
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
that the ICICI Bank Ltd. continues to hold the said amount in the said
account subject to the outcome of the Suit.
13. It is however clarified that in case a demand is made either by
the Government of Maharashtra or the Government of Gujarat for
transfer of amount to their credit, it would be open to ICICI Bank Ltd.
to approach the trial court for appropriate modification or variation of
this order and for granting permission to transfer the said amount.
Impugned Order dated 18.01.2022 is modified to the above extent.
14. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. It is
clarified that this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties.
15. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 28, 2022
NA
FAO 21/2022 Digitally Signed 4
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:29.01.2022
Signing Date:30.01.2022 10:12:35 20:44
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
