1 35 nms 1247.09.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1247 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 718 OF 2009 Union Bank of India .. Plaintiff -versus HDFC Bank Ltd. & 4 Ors. .. Defendants. Mr. Harinder Toor a/w Nainesh N. Amin for the Plaintiff. Mr. Madhusudan G. Gawde for the Defendant no.1. Mr. Mahendra Kumthekar for the Defendant no.2. Mr. A.S.Rao for the Defendant no. 4 and 5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1 By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff Bank claims interim relief and particularly a direction to the Defendant no.1 to repay and return a sum of Rs.10 Crores together with interest till payment at the rate of 12.50% per annum. 2 The Defendant no.1 HDFC Bank Ltd. has filed an affidavit- in-reply and in para 8 thereof is as under: 8 I say that, the Defendant No.1 on 6th February 2009 on receipt of Telephone Call from 2 35 nms 1247.09.doc the Plaintiff Bank stopped transfer of any amount out of the said amount of Rs.10.00 crores, however by the time the Defendant No.1 bank received Telephone Call from the Plaintiff, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been already transferred and/or gone out in normal course of business without intervention or knowledge of the Defendant No.1 bank of said amount of Rs.10.00 crores. I say that, the balance amount of Rs.9,99,18,639.98 is presently lying in three different account of (1) Pradeep Khanwilkar, (2) Shreepada Harapanhalli and (3) Ashirwad Mineral Respondent No.1 to 3 herein and the Defendant No.1 bank has blocked the said amount and also stopped transfer of any amount from the said accounts and the Defendant No.1 bank by their letter dated 3rd March, 2009 informed and/or disclosed to the Plaintiff that out of said amount of Rs.10.00 crores an amount of Rs.9,99,18,639.98 is still lying in the accounts of the aforesaid three persons and the Defendant No.1 bank has blocked the said remaining amount. 3 35 nms 1247.09.doc 3 The learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that he will deposit sum of Rs. 9,99,19,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The statement of Mr.Gawde appearing on behalf of Defendant no.1/Bank is accepted. Mr. Rao appearing on behalf of Defendant nos. 4 and 5 states that the Defendant nos. 4 and 5 are aggrieved by the fact that their account with the Defendant no.1/Bank, details of which are set out in their Notice of Motion No. 4143 of 2009 are frozen. They be permitted to operate the said account and the ad-interim order be vacated. 4 The HDFC Bank has filed an affidavit even in this Notice of Motion and has stated that it has frozen or blocked the accounts of Defendant nos. 4 and 5 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11th February, 2009. The suit is filed by the Union Bank of India for a decree in the sum of Rs.10 Crores. 5 The Union Bank of India has claimed this sum on the basis that the employees of the Plaintiff colluded with one Tarachand Shaha. In para 3 of the plaint the modes operendi adopted by Tarachand Shaha is set out in details and it is contended that the amounts to the tune of Rs.10,87,35,000/- have been transferred from the account of M/s Manibhadra Trading 4 35 nms 1247.09.doc Company to M/s Shri Imports and on the same day M/s Shri Imports transferred that sum to the account of Defendant no.2 with the Defendant no.1. 6 Defendant nos. 4 and 5 claim that there is no privity of contract with the Plaintiff Bank. However, Defendant nos. 2 and 3 had dealings and transaction with the Defendant No.4 and 5. The Defendant nos. 4 and 5 have to recover sum of Rs.80,00,000/- from the Defendant nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the interim order be vacated and the Bank accounts be released. Thereafter, this court should protect the claim of the Defendant nos. 4 and 5 as well. 7 In my view, any relief in favour of Defendant nos. 4 and 5 in the present suit cannot be granted. They will have to prove their claim against Defendant nos. 2 and 3 by adopting appropriate proceedings. It is not as if, if the sum deposited in HDFC Bank is being released in favour of the Plaintiff. The amount will lie deposited in this court until further orders and directions. Further, none of the Defendants can have any apprehension because the court will ensure prudent investment of the amount deposited. So that it earns reasonable rate of interest. However, no reliefs other than permitting the operation of Bank account of Defendant nos. 4 and 5 with Defendant no.1 can be granted. 5 35 nms 1247.09.doc 8 Accordingly, both Notice of Motions are disposed of by the following order: i) Defendant no.1 HDFC Bank is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.9,99,19,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Said amount be invested in a Nationalized Bank in fixed deposit initially for three years and later on to abide by further orders and directions of this court. ii) The Defendant no.1 Bank shall allow the Defendant nos. 4 and 5 to operate their bank account but subject to final orders in the suit. iii) As far as the claims of the Defendant nos.4 and 5 against the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, liberty is granted to them to adopt appropriate proceedings and thereafter seek such reliefs as are permissible in law. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)