1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2001 Indian Bank … Petitioner. Versus A.K. Pandya & Ors. … Respondents. Mr. K.H. Modi i/b JMB Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Patil i/b Prakash S. Jani for Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2009. P.C. 1 By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31st July, 1997 passed by the Banking Ombudsman Madhya Pradesh Bhopal directing the Petitioner-Bank to make the payment of the bill to M/s Gwalior Chemical Industries Ltd.- Respondent No.3. The short ground on which the order is challenged by the Petitioner-Indian Bank is that though this order has been made on the complaint made by the 2 Respondent No.3 dated 28th November, 1996, where the respondent No.3 stated that they negotiated the documents through UCO Bank, Birlagram and Nagda drawn under the Letter of Credit established by the Indian Bank, Fort, Mumbai on behalf of the M/s. Arlabs Ltd. Mumbai, no payment was received by the Respondent No.3 under the Letter of Credit. The prayer made in that application reads as under: “Accordingly we are lodging our complaint to you with a request to kindly instruct UCO Bank, to release our payment with uptodate interest @ 24% p.a. from the due dates.” 2 We have been told that in the Reserve Bank of India there is a Customer complaint cell wherein in case of default of presentation of document drawn, complaint can be made and accordingly a complaint was lodged by the Respondent No.3 with request to instruct UCO Bank to release payment with up to date interest at the rate of 24% per annum from due dates. 3 A copy of the complaint was forwarded to the Petitioner Bank. The Petitioner Bank submitted its reply which is dated 12th February, 1997. It was stated in the reply that as per the terms of Letter of Credit, documents were to be presented for negotiation by 15.03.1995. However, the UCO 3 Bank presented bills amounting to Rs. 5,30,345/- with the Indian Bank on 21.03.1995 and 23.03.1995 without submitting any documents as per the terms of Letter of Credit by 15.03.1995, therefore, the bills were returned to the UCO Bank. No claim was made against the Indian Bank. 4 Perusal of the order dated 31st July, 1997 shows that though order was claimed only against UCO Bank the authority has directed the Petitioner Bank to make payment of the amount to the Respondent No.3 with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of second presentation of the documents i.e. 07.04.1995 to the date of actual payment. 5 We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. It is clear from the complaint that there was no relief sought against the petitioner Bank in the complaint. The order dated 31st July, 1997 has been made on that complaint. No order could have been made against the petitioner bank in that complaint. The order dated 31st July, 1997 in so far as it directs Petitioner-Bank to make the payment was contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In the result, therefore, the order dated 31st July, 1997, copy of which is at Exhibit “Q” is so far as if directs Indian Bank 4 to make the payment to the respondent No.3 is set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)