IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25511 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.VIKRAMAN, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, PULIKINI VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR, NOW RESIDING AT K.V.BHAVAN, MUTTAPPALAM, PERUNGUZHI P.O., CHIRYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.A.SABEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KADAKKAVOOR BRANCH, KADAKKAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. H.D.F.C.BANK LTD., KENTON TOWERS, NEAR KALA BHAVAN THEATER, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. BANKING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI (KARIKKAMURI) SRI.B.PREMKUMAR SRI.T.SANJAY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25511 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.435678 DATED 12.06.04 NO.9. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.06.04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.08.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.08.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER DATED 24.11.05 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 18.01.09 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 19.01.09. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 05.07.04 AS PER WHICH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WAS SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.10-160-698-3017 DATED 09.11.05. EXT.R1(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.A/4459/SBT/I SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN. EXT.R1(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.08.05 OF THE HSBC BANK INFORMING THAT THE PAYMENT WAS STOPPED. EXT.R1(F) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.09.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(G) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.01.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 25511 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner then stationed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia obtained transit of money by way of foreign exchange transfer valid at 60,000/- Indian Rupees through the 2nd respondent HDFC Bank to be credited to the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner in the 1st respondent-State Bank of Travancore. On receipt of that cheque, the 1st respondent sent it to the 2nd respondent for encashment. In the meanwhile, at the request of the petitioner, the 1st respondent discounted the cheque and gave credit to the SB Account. Later, the 2nd respondent HDFC Bank returned the cheque as an incomplete instrument, in as much as it did not contain the signatures of both the counter signatories. The 1st respondent State Bank of Travancore communicated that fact to the petitioner by returning the cheque to him by registered post and also made consequential reversal of the credit given by it to the SB account of the petitioner. Thereafter, matters stood WP(C) No. 25511 of 2009 -:2:- still and at later point of time the petitioner turned up before the Banking Ombudsman and also disputed that he did not obtain the cheque and allied materials sent by the 1st respondent by registered post. In its turn, the 1st respondent bank took up the matter with the Postal Department which then states that more than six months having elapsed after registration of the postal article, no further enquiry is possible by the Postal Department. After hearing all the parties, the Banking Ombudsman found no way to give relief to the petitioner and accordingly closed the proceedings. Hence this writ petition. 2. From the aforesaid it can be seen that the reversal made by the State Bank of Travancore in the entries was merely a reversal of the credit given by it on the basis of the instrument on the bona fide belief that it would be encashed. The HDFC Bank took the stand that the instrument was incomplete and therefore it could not act on it. Obviously therefore, the State Bank of Travancore could not be accused WP(C) No. 25511 of 2009 -:3:- for making the reversal of the entries. The HDFC Bank was also not criticised for not honouring the instrument because the petitioner has no case that the instrument carried the signatures of both persons who were required to sign it. With this facts in mind, the HDFC Bank has stopped the payment of the cheque in question and not released any funds referable to that document or instrument. Hence, the petitioner’s remedy, if any, can be only against the Bank or Institution which collected the funds from him in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The State Bank of Travancore had made certain efforts and the Alrajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange Bank has informed the State Bank of Travancore that it has no branch in Jeddah. Whatever that be, neither among respondents 1 and 2 can be responsible. Not only that, the fact remains that, the cheque has not been encahsed through either among respondents 1 and 2. 3. From the aforesaid reasons, preserving all the rights of the petitioner to seek relief against the aforesaid Foreign Bank, WP(C) No. 25511 of 2009 -:4:- or their appropriate counter part or agents in India, in accordance with law, this Writ Petition is dismissed finding no reason to interfere with the decision of the Banking Ombudsman. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge. ttb WP(C) No. 25511 of 2009 -:5:-