Case: Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Race Shipping &amp; Tpt. Co. Pvt. Ltd

3. Bank of Maharashtra, hereinafter referred to as theis a nationalised bank having a branch providing banking facilities at Nariman Point at Bombay. Race Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt. Limited, respondent No.1 therein, has been operating Current Account No.318 at the said branch of theAs per the mandate of respondent No.1 the said account is to be operated jointly by G.L. Bhatia and Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No.1. One bearer cheque bearing No.425395 dated August 26, 1992 for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/was drawn on theThe said cheque was encashed at the said branch of theon August 26, 1992 and the amount of Rs.95,000/was debited to the account of respondent No.1. The case of theis that the said amount was paid to one Jadhav, whose signatures were appended at the back of the cheque, and who was an employee of respondent No.1. The said cheque admittedly contains the signature of G.L. Bhatia. The other signature purports to be of Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No.1. The said signature is on the face of the cheque as well as on the back. Respondent No.1 claims that the said signature is not of Ashok Chattopadhyay and the same is forged. This fact was brought to the notice of theby respondent No.1 on September 3, 1992. Thereupon thelodged a First Information Report with regard to the alleged forgery, as claimed by respondent No.1, at Police Station at Cuffe Parade, Bombay on September 4, 1993 and the matter is being investigated by the police. It is not disputed that the said cheque is from the Cheque Book issued to respondent No.1 by theRespondent No.1 claimed reimbursement of the said sum of Rs. 95,000/nk on the basis that the signature of Ashok Chattopadhyay on the cheque was forged and thus thewas liable to reimburse the said amount paid by thefrom the account of respondent No.1 against the said cheque. The said claim of respondent No.1 was contested by theon the ground that the question whether the signature of Ashok Chattopadhyay on the said cheque was forged was still under investigation and till the said signature is found to be forged there was proper mandate for payment on the basis of the said cheque. Thereupon the respondent on April 21, 1993 filed a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1245 of 1993) in the Bombay High Court wherein it has been prayed as under :``(a) Writ of mandamus or a Writ or Order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Petitioner bank to reverse the debit entry dated 26.8.1992 for Rs. 95,000/in their Current A/C No.318 or direct the petitioner Bank to make payment of the respondent No.1 Company herein of a sum of Rs.95,000/with interest thereon at the rate of 18% from the date of the said amount had been withdrawn from the account.(b) to direct the Petitioner herein to credit a sum of Rs.95,000/in the current account No.318 during the pendency of the Writ Petition on the respondent No.1 herein furnishing an indemnity for the same."4. In the said Writ Petition an affidavit dated July 6, 1993 of Rajiv V. Pinglay, who is employed as Advance Ledger Posting Machine Operator with thewas filed on behalf ofIn the said affidavit it is stated:``I say that the employees of the Petitioner No.1 company regularly visited the Branch for the banking transactions, and one of such employees is one Mr. Jadhav. On 26th of August, 1992 a cheque bearing No. 425395 for Rs.95,000/In accordance with the said order of the High Court thecredited a sum of Rs.95,000/to the account of respondent No.1 on July 9, 1993. From theof Capt. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal filed on behalf of respondent No.1 it appears that respondent No.1 has withdrawn a substantial part of the said amount leaving a balance of about Rs.6001.65.7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, thehas filed this appeal.

Reasoning:
10. Since the Writ Petition is still pending in the High Court and the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition has yet to be considered we do not propose to go into the said question. All that we wish to say at this stage is that the objections that have been raised by theagainst the maintainability of the writ petition are not such that they may be disregarded as lacking in substance. This is a factor which has a bearing or the exercise of discretion by the Court while passing the interim order in the writ petition.11. By the interim order the High Court has directed theto credit a sum of Rs.95,000/in the current account No. 318 of respondent No.1. The High Court has recorded that respondent through their counsel had given an undertaking to bring back the amount if the Court so desires. The said interim order, in substance, grants the relief which the respondent would have been given at the final stage in the event of their writ petition being allowed by the High Court.12. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See : Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India LtdOrs., 1985 (1) SCC 260  at p. 265; State of RajasthanOrs. v. M/s Swaika PropertiesAnr., 1985 (3) SCC 217  at p. 224].13. In the instant case since there is serious dispute on facts it cannot even be said that a prima facie case had been made out for grant of an interim order in favour of the respondents which enables them to have the reimbursement of the sum of Rs.95,000/that was debited to their account in view of the encashment of the cheque in question. We are of the view that this was not a case in which the High Court while admitting the Writ Petition should have passed an interim order giving such a direction. In the circumstances we are unable to uphold the said interim order passed by the High Court.