R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.5.2009 Canara Bank .......... Appellant Versus M/s Well Rope International Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5814-C of 2009 This is an application for exemption from filing the certified copy of decree-sheet dated 19.1.2008. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, the applicant – appellant is exempted from filing the certified copy of decree-sheet dated 19.1.2008. C.M. No. 5815-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 2 R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 & C.M. No. 5816-C of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008, passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant / appellant, to correct the wrong entry dated 9.9.1999, in the account of the plaintiff / respondent, has been ordered to be decreed. The plaintiff / respondent a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had an account with the defendant / appellant. Amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac only ) was debited from the account of the plaintiff / respondent by the defendant / appellant bank, and credited in the account of M/s Calcutta Industrial Corporation, without any instructions from the plaintiff / respondent. On coming to know about the debit entry, the plaintiff / respondent approached the bank for correction of the said entry, on refusal, the suit for mandatory injunction was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant / appellant, by raising a preliminary objection, that the suit as framed was not competent. The stand was also taken, that the debit entry was made on the instructions of Mr. S.K. Arora, who was one of the partners in a sister concern i.e. M/s Calcutta Industrial Corporation. It was on his oral instructions, that the amount was debited. The learned Courts below decreed the suit by recording a concurrent finding, that the bank could not act, on oral instructions to debit the account of an account holder. R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 3 Mr. A.P. Jagga, learned counsel for the appellant contends that appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is liable to be reversed as the suit for mandatory injunction was not competent ? 2. Whether the learned Courts below misread the evidence, in coming to the conclusion that Mr. S.K. Arora, who was alleged to have issued oral instructions was not having any concern with the plaintiff / respondent ? In support of the first substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for mandatory injunction was not competent, as the suit for recovery was to be filed. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. The defendant / appellant is governed by the rules and regulations of Banking, and the Bank violated the statutory rules and regulations of Banking, it was always open to the plaintiff / respondent to seek mandatory injunction to rectify the error committed. It can not be said, that the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent was not competent. It is open to party to seek injunction against defendant / appellant for performance of statutory duty under the Banking regulations. The second substantial question of law raised, also is misconceived. No banking regulation permits the bank to act on oral instructions, on the instructions of a Director of the Company, as the R.S.A. No. 1979 of 2009 4 Company is to act through resolution. The defendant / appellant could only act on written instructions, to make an entry of the debit or credit in the account of customers. The learned Courts below rightly decreed the suit. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 14.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE