AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2007 Wall Street Finance Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at “Natasha” 52, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. ) ) ) ) ) ) ... Petitioner Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, Thane Divisional Office Arjun Towers, 3rd floor, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West) – 4300 601. ) ) ) ) ) ) ... Respondent Mr. M.I. Sethna, senior advocate with Mr. L.S. Shetty and Mr. A.M. Sethna i/b M/s. L.S. Shetty & Associates for the petitioner. Mr. Raymond Samuel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESERVED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2007. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 9TH JANUARY, 2008. AJN 2 JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of converting foreign currency into Indian currency and vice versa. The respondent is a public sector insurance company fully owned by the Government of India engaged in the business of insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938. 2. The respondent issued a Special Contingency Insurance Policy dated 10/9/2003 in favour of the petitioner which was valid from 9/9/2003 to 8/9/2003. The sum assured was Rs.5 crores during the year. The respondent was to indemnify the petitioner against the loss caused to the property by burglary, house breaking, theft, etc. According to the petitioner, a theft was committed in the petitioner' s office at No.49/A-B, Noor Hospital Building, Ground floor, Mohamed Ali Road, Mumbai – 400 003 in the early morning of 27/1/2004. 3. It is stated in the petition that though 26/1/2004 was a public AJN 3 holiday, the petitioner's office was opened at 11.00 a.m. as it was Haj season and the office was working till 11.30 p.m. According to the petitioner, thereafter, the entire cash and foreign currency was calculated and was kept in Godrej steel safe in the office and the said safe was locked at 1.40 a.m. on 27/1/2004. 4. The office was closed and locked by the Branch Manager - Mr. Imran Khader Alvi. According to the petitioner, when the north gate of the petitioner's office was opened on 27/1/2004 at about 9.20 a.m. by the Assistant Manager of the petitioner - Mr. Shankar Mohan Kamath, he noticed that some theft/burglary had been committed in the office by breaking open the locks of the gate and by opening the Godrej steel safe kept inside the office. The Assistant Manager immediately informed the Branch Manager about the theft/burglary. The Branch Manager inspected the office and found that the two keys of another shutter kept in the right hand side of his drawer and one key of the safe on the southern side were missing. He found that Indian currency to the tune of Rs.1,59,77,000/- was stolen. The description of the Indian and AJN 4 foreign currency is given in the petition as under : “Rs.1,59,77,000/- Indian currency containing one thousand currency notes in the denomination of thousand, twelve thousand currency notes of Rs. five hundred, thirty six thousand currency notes of Rs. hundred, six thousand currency notes of Rs. Fifty, fourteen hundred notes of Rs. twenty and four thousand nine hundred currency notes of Rs. ten. Rs.66,74,640/- in all 1,43,850/- dollars of various denominations worth in Indian currency mentioned in the adjoining column.” No adjoining column is, however, found in the petition. 5. According to the petitioner, the Branch Manager immediately lodged a complaint before the Police Inspector of Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai, on 27/1/2004. The said complaint was registered vide Crime No.32 of 2004 under sections 454, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the final report of the police dated 10/6/2005 is enclosed to the petition as Exhibit-”D”. The said report states that “as per the investigation of the police, it appears AJN 5 that it was a well planned work of some mastermind criminals who had committed this offence very systematically and skillfully using instruments”. The report further states that “there is no evidence about the involvement of any employees of the complainant/petitioner”. The report further states that “the police have made all possible efforts to detect this case and that the case has been classified as “A” Final, that is, true but undetected”. 6. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has sustained loss to the extent of Rs.2,26,51,640/-. After the audit conducted by Anil A. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, the amount has been revised to Rs.2,12,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that this amount is clearly and fully covered by the Special Contingency Insurance Policy issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent is bound by law to indemnify the petitioner the said loss of Rs.2,12,00,000/-. 7. According to the petitioner, the petitioner informed the respondent about the burglary by letter dated 27/1/2004. The AJN 6 respondent sent their officials to the petitioner's premises. The Surveyor and Loss Adjuster surveyed the branch. Certain information/documents were called for. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted necessary affidavits and records, from time to time to the respondent. However, as there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner made its reasonable and just claim of Rs.2,12,00,000/- to the respondent through M/s. Boda Insurance Brokers Private Limited on 3/2/2006 enclosing the relevant documents in support of its claim. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, in an arbitrary manner, rejected the petitioner's claim by its letter dated 8/5/2006. The respondent, inter alia, stated in the said letter that there has been no forcible entry into the premises and the safe from which the cash was stolen was opened by its own keys as clearly stated by the manufacturers. The letter further stated that as there was no substantiation to the contrary, the subject claim has been treated as “No claim” and the file is closed. The petitioner then served a legal notice on the respondent dated 10/1/2007. AJN 7 However, the respondent has not replied to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking this court' s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed that this court may direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,12,00,000/- along with statutory interest payable at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of incident i.e. 27/1/2004 until the date of payment in accordance with indemnity / undertaking given by the respondent under the Special Contingency Insurance Policy dated 10/9/2003. 9. A detailed affidavit in reply is filed by Ms. M.D. Nilekani, Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent, refuting the case of the petitioner and denying its liability. The affidavit is, inter alia, based on the Surveyor' s report and the report of the Godrej & Boyce & Co. The respondent has, inter alia, alleged fraud. 10. We have heard, at great length, Mr. Sethna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Written submissions have been tendered by Mr. Sethna, which we have carefully perused. AJN 8 Mr. Sethna contended that the respondent is an instrumentality of the State and, hence, even if it is engaged in commercial transactions, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that at the relevant time, the respondent was a monopoly organization and any citizen intending to take insurance other than life insurance had to go to the respondent. Mr. Sethna heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited & Anr. V. Export Credit Gurantee Corporation of India & Ors., JT 2003 (10) SC 300. He submitted that in this judgment after considering its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court has laid down that in an appropriate case a writ petition is maintainable against an instrumentality of the State even if the subject matter thereof arises out of a contractual obligation. Mr. Sethna contended that even if the contention of the respondent is accepted that this case involves disputed questions of facts, it must be noted that the Supreme Court has laid down in ABL International' s case (supra), that merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, the same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a AJN 9 writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. Mr. Sethna contended that in fact no disputed questions of facts are involved in this case. Mr. Sethna submitted that the respondent has rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the policy contract regarding the posting of armed guards; that the petitioner failed to prove that the CCTV arrangements were made at the site and that the report of the manufacturers of the safe M/s. Godrej & Boyce & Co. is to the effect that the safe from which theft took place seems to have been opened by its own keys. According to the respondent, these are disputed questions of facts and, hence, evidence will have to be led to prove them. Mr. Sethna submitted that so far as posting of armed guards and provisions of CCTV are concerned, this court can only peruse the proposal form and the insurance policy. Neither the proposal form nor the policy stipulate maintenance of CCTV as alleged by the respondent. Mr. Sethna reiterated what is stated in the written submissions that upto 1998-1999, the concerned Branch was an Export Branch and these instruments were installed prior to the execution of the insurance policy of AJN 10 2003-2004. Post 1999, the Mohamedali Road Branch did not continue to be an Export Branch and, hence, these instruments were not activated thereafter. On this, according to Mr. Sethna, there can be no dispute. So far as the report of Godrej & Boyce & Co. is concerned, Mr. Sethna submitted that it is the case of the petitioner based on that report that safe was opened by use of duplicate keys. This has been accepted even in the “A” Final Police Report. Therefore, this is not a disputed question of fact. Interpretation of proposal form and policy contract does not require any elaborate evidence. Mr. Sethna contended that the respondent had relied upon a preliminary survey report dated 12/4/2005. According to Mr. Sethna, it is reliably learnt that after the receipt of the “A” Final report dated 10/6/2005 and after considering the report of the independent surveyor M/s. Boda & Co., the surveyor who had given the earlier report dated 12/4/2005 has modified his earlier report and has then come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was required to be favourably considered. He submitted that the respondent has failed and neglected to furnish the said report. He submitted that, therefore, AJN 11 the present petition may be entertained or, at least, the respondent may be directed to reconsider the petitioner's case. In support of his submission, Mr. Sethna also relied on the judgment of this court in Western Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. New India Assurance Ltd., 2006 (Supp.) Bom C.R. 531. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Nilekani, Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent. He submitted that the petition involves several disputed questions of facts. He submitted that such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this court in its writ jurisdiction and, therefore, on this point alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He submitted that under the insurance policy, the petitioner was required to take appropriate security measures. The petitioner has failed to take the required security measures. The loss as per the information supplied to the police was Rs.1,59,77,000/- and foreign currency valued at Rs.66,74,640/-. He submitted that subsequently a statement of revised loss was sent to the police. Learned counsel AJN 12 submitted that the petitioner's claim is not substantiated by any accurate record. He submitted that the respondent has fulfilled all its legal obligations. Surveyor has investigated the petitioner's claim and submitted a detailed report which inter alia indicates that the petitioner was totally negligent; that the petitioner was operational even on public holidays; that the register of cash advance was incomplete; that the petitioner's physical cash was more as compared to the petitioner's daily cash balance and whereas the FIR showed, a certain quantity of allegedly lost Indian and foreign currency, subsequently on 4/2/2004, a statement of revised loss was made. Learned counsel pointed out that the surveyor's report clearly states that the loss would not fall within the purview of the insurance policy. 12. Learned counsel contended that in ABL International' s case (supra) on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, the Supreme Court has clarified that unless the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable, the court should not issue a prerogative writ. The Supreme Court has also referred to AJN 13 some of its judgments where it is stated that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact which require consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, this court should not entertain the present writ petition. 13. Heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ABL International' s case (supra). Suffice it therefore to only refer to that judgment. Before we go to the conclusions recorded by the Supreme Court in that judgment, it is necessary to refer to some earlier judgments to which the Supreme Court has made a reference in it. The Supreme Court has referred to its judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore & Ors., 1955 (1) SCR 305 where it has held that even in matters of contract if the action of the State is arbitrary, the court can interfere with it in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also referred to its judgment in The D.F.O. South Kheri & Ors. v. Ram Sanehi Singh, 1971(3) AJN 14 SCC 864 where after following the judgment in K.N. Guruswami's case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that a person cannot be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit merely because the source of the right which the respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of the public authority. Undoubtedly, therefore, even in matters of contract, the court can interfere with an arbitrary and unlawful state action in its writ jurisdiction. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in ABL International' s case (supra) and noted as the first conclusion. However, the Supreme Court has added certain riders to this proposition to which we shall now advert. 14. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court has also referred to its judgment in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., 2002 (1) SCC 216 where it has observed that where the alleged breach of contract involves seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties required to be determined on the basis of the evidence which may be led by the parties, such AJN 15 questions would be decided in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs. The Supreme Court has also referred to its judgment in Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors. 1970 AIR SC 802, where it has observed that whether facts are in dispute or not, can only be determined after the affidavit in reply is filed by the State and when the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, the High Court may decline to interfere with it if it feels that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition. It is important to note that in this case, a detailed affidavit with annexures is filed by the respondent, where the respondent has raised several objections to the claim made by the petitioner. The respondent has inter alia contended that the petitioner is negligent; that the petitioner has not taken security measures as required under the insurance policy and that the surveyor's report indicates that no force was applied and the lock was opened by a duplicate key. The respondent has challenged the case of the petitioner that there was a theft/burglary. The respondent has even disputed the quantum of Indian and foreign currency. Therefore, AJN 16 we have no hesitation in recording that serious disputed questions of facts arise in this case. Since in the affidavit filed in this court, the respondent has seriously disputed the entire case of the petitioner, in our opinion, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jain Plastics's case (supra) and in Gunwant Kaur's case (supra), it is not possible for this court to deal with the rival contentions in its writ jurisdiction. In ABL International's case (supra), the Supreme Court has not stated that the law declared by it in Jain Plastics's case (supra) and in Gunwant Kaur's case (supra), is not a good law. Ultimately, whether disputed questions of facts are involved or not, would depend on the circumstances of each case. 15. The second conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court is that merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, the same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. & Anr. v. The Ulhasnagar AJN 17 Municipal Council & Anr., 1970 (3) SCR 854, to which reference is made in ABL International's case (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court has held that merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. But, the Supreme Court has indicated that the question of fact raised by the petitioner in the case before it was elementary. Therefore, if the questions of fact raised by the petitioner are elementary and can be easily decided on the basis of the affidavits, undoubtedly, the court can decide them even in the writ jurisdiction. As already indicated by us, the questions of fact involved in this case are far from elementary and, therefore, in our opinion, the present petition cannot be entertained. 16. While coming to its third conclusion that a writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable, the Supreme Court has referred to UP Pollution Control Board & Ors. v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. & Anr., 2001 AJN 18 (2) SCC 549, where it was dealing with a question of refund of money in a writ petition. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed that where the claims made for refund in the writ petitions were consequent upon declaration of law made by the High Court, the High Court should have entertained the writ petition. The Supreme Court also referred to Suganmal v. State of MP, AIR 1965 SC 1740 where it has observed that normally, the petitions solely praying for refund of money against the State are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has then observed that this judgment cannot be read as laying down the law that no writ petition at all can be entertained where the claim is made for only refund of money consequent upon declaration of law. The Supreme Court clarified that in cases where facts are not in dispute and collection of money as cess was itself without the authority of law, no case of undue enrichment was made out, the amount of AJN 19 cess was paid under protest and the writ petitions were filed within a reasonable time from the date of declaration that the law under which tax/cess was collected was unconstitutional, writ petitions can be entertained. The present petition involves only money claim. Prayer is not for refund of money illegally collected in the context of which the Supreme Court observed that petitions involving only money claims can also be entertained. In any case, even if writ petition involving simplicitor money claim is held to be maintainable, it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court has indicated in ABL International' s case (supra) that in such petitions, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be used sparingly and only in cases where there are no disputed facts. 17. In this case, we are not concerned with any consequential relief of monetary claim. Petition involves only a money claim. There is no declaration of law sought. Therefore, this case will not be covered by the third conclusion contained in paragraph 27(c) of the ABL International' s case (supra). However, assuming it is covered, the quantum of Indian and foreign currency which was AJN 20 allegedly stolen, itself is disputed by the respondent. There are several major undisputed facts in this case. In such a situation, the parties will have to lead evidence. The respondent has heavily relied on the survey report of the petitioner. However, it is the case of the petitioner that there is yet another subsequent survey report which supports the petitioner but which has not been purposely produced by the respondent. Surely this question cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. For this purpose also, evidence will have to be led. 18. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that even examined in the light of the ABL International' s case (supra), the present petition cannot be entertained as it involves serious disputed questions of facts. This is not a case where elementary questions of facts are involved. It is, therefore, not possible for us to entertain this petition. 19. The rejection of this petition, however, does not prevent the respondent from reconsidering the petitioner's case if it is so AJN 21 advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either parties. The petition is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]