IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9496 of 2008 ONKAR PRASAD SHARMA @ ONKAR SH Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3. 25.09.2008 The petitioner and his wife Smt. Urmila Sharma are non- resident Indian. They were unfortunate to have opened a N.R.O. Accounts in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna hoping that their money would be safe in the hands of the said bank. To their nightmare, when they deposited substantial money in their said account and directed the bank to remit the same to United States of America where they were residing, the bank refused by their letter dated 25.3.2008 as contained in Annexure-1. This brought to the petitioner to this Court. Upon notice, the State Bank has appeared and filed counter affidavit. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. When a person opens a bank account and deposits money therein the bank does not become the owner of that money. Bank is merely custodian and trusty for the depositor and on behalf of the depositor he holds the money in trust to be disposed of on instructions of the depositor. Bank is accountable to the depositor and non else. What I find here is rather strange situation. The depositor apparently has some private family dispute which has occasion of filing a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 470 of 2007 pending before Sub-Judge-III, Patna. Apparently in the said suit the plaintiff has sought an injunction against the petitioner in respect of sale of - 2 - property being made by him and has sought injunction of account but admittedly and undisputedly the Court has passed no order whatsoever much less any order restraining the bank in any manner. Yet the Chief Manager by letter dated 25.3.2008 has clearly expressed his inability to the petitioner to remit the money as per petitioner’s instructions on the specious plea of mere pendency of the suit. The matter does not end there. The petitioner is further advised by the said letter to obtain orders from the Civil Court to permit the bank to remit the petitioner’s money as per petitioner’s instructions. This Court wonders as to on what basis such a communication was made. The petitioner had not gone to the Court and at best would be a defendant in the suit. The Court had not granted any injunction even though it was prayed for. Still the bank injuncts itself and wants the defendant to seek orders from the Court, a procedure wholly unknown to law. It is a clear violation of trust by the State Bank of India imposed on it by the depositor. State Bank of India had no authority in law to discard/disregard the instructions of the depositor. It was not Bank’s money. The money belonged to the depositor. I only mention if a bank like State Bank of India starts functioning in this arbitrary illegal manner then the faith of depositors in the banking transaction and instructions would fail which would effect not only the depositor, not only the bank but the whole banking system. I accordingly direct that unless the respondent bank has - 3 - already been restrained by an order of a competent Court the bank shall forthwith take steps to remit the money as per the instructions given to it by the depositor the petitioner. The bank would also be liable to pay interest @ six percent per annum apart from interest which would accrue in normal course on the deposit in the account from the time they received instructions and to the time remittance is effectively made to the petitioner for the illegal and unlawful delay made by the bank. Shageer (Naviniti Prasad Singh, J)