Whether Bank has right to recover money paid under mistake?

 The Bank, of course, has a right to recover the money paid under a mistake as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as under:

72. Liability of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion.- A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.

29. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar-Ul-Nissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0007/1966: AIR 1967 SC 540. In that case, this Court had held that if a third party, by mistake deposits the money in account of some other person, as soon as the money is deposited in the account of such third person, who is a customer of the bank, the money becomes the money of customer, and it is not open to the bank in such circumstances, without obtaining the consent of the customer, to reverse the entry of credit made in his account and in effect pay back the money to the person who had deposited it, even though it might have been deposited by mistake. In this connection, we may refer to a judgment in United Overseas Bank v. Jiwani (1977) 1 All ER 733, wherein the Defendant had an account in Switzerland in which there was a credit of US$ 11000. The Defendant intended to purchase a hotel as an investment. The Bankers in Switzerland sent by telex US$ 11000 to London bankers at the instance of the Defendant and also an advice confirming the telex. The London bank by a mistake credited two sums of US$ 11000 to the Defendant. Later, when the Defendant enquired about its balance, it was shown to be about US$ 32000. The Defendant purchased a hotel out of the amount with the London Bankers. Facts would reveal, but for this balance shown, he would not have been able to purchase the hotel. The bankers rectified its error. Consequently, there was a debit balance of US$ 9000 as against the Defendant. Plaintiff bank demanded the money of the overdraft. It was held by the Court that the extra money credited to the Defendant's account was under mistake of fact and the bank was entitled to recover it.

Banking - Wrong credit - Re-payment thereof - Appellant's challenge to action of Bank was dismissed by High Court on ground that it was dispute which arose out of contractual relationship between parties and therefore, appropriate remedy for Appellant was by way of civil suit and not writ petition - Hence, present appeal - Whether Bank was right in debiting foreign currency in Appellant's account, after long lapse of time, on ground that it was wrongly deposited in Appellant's account and driving Appellant to recover amount by way of civil proceeding - Held, Appellant used to export goods directly and submitted documents to Bank and it was for Bank to claim payment and report transaction to Reserve Bank of India to claim export benefits - Bank committed mistake when Appellant had submitted copies of export bills to it on account of amount related to Importer - Bank after seeing credit amount in name of Appellant Smart Screen Reconciliation, evidently in good faith credited said amount to account of Appellant which was meant for another Bank - Bank might have committed mistake, but now it would be impossible for Appellant to recover amount from importer since, so far as importer was concerned, it had paid amount - If Bank had not given credit of amount, then, Appellant could have proceeded against importer at earliest opportunity - Therefore, Appellant would not suffer for mistake committed by Bank - Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2014 (Arising out Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28366 of 2010)

Decided On: 23.04.2014

Appellants: Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: State Bank of India and Ors.

Coram:K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen, JJ.

Citation;AIR2014SC3206.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai is right in debiting the Appellant's EEFC A/c EURO No. 10937619705 an amount of € 136,027.03, after a long lapse of time, on the ground that it was wrongly deposited in the Appellant's and driving the Appellant to recover the amount by way of civil proceedings.

3. Writ Petition Under Article 226 was filed by the Appellant challenging the action of the Bank which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it is a dispute which arose out of a contractual relationship between the parties and hence the appropriate remedy for the Appellant was by way of a civil suit and not a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by way of special leave.

4. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the remedy available to the Appellant is to approach the civil court since the dispute arose is of contractual nature. Learned senior Counsel submitted that since the State Bank of India is a nationalized bank and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition Under Article 226 is maintainable and the bank has no legal right to reverse a legal entry after having credited the same in the Appellant's account. Learned senior Counsel submitted that, in any view, without obtaining the consent of the Appellant, the entry should not have been reversed. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation MANU/SC/0014/1965 : AIR 1967 SC 96. Learned senior Counsel also submitted that the writ petition is perfectly maintainable and the reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in ABL International Limited and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/1080/2003 : (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Shri Vallabh Glass Works Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0173/1984 : (1984) 3 SCC 362.

5. Shri J.P. Cama, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-bank, explained the circumstances which led to the bank in reversing the entry. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the amount credited in the Appellant's account is not its, but the amount exclusively belonged to the Bank, which was deposited in the Appellant's account by mistake, and hence could be recovered debiting its account, which is a normal banking practice and was done in good faith. Learned senior Counsel submitted that only when the Bank debits an amount which exclusively belongs to the account holder, then only the bank needs consent of the account holder. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the Bank had a lien on the amount deposited in the Appellant's account and it is that which could be debited from the Appellant's account. Learned senior Counsel submitted that, in any view, the High Court is justified in holding that even if the Appellant has any grievance, the same could be remedied only through a regular civil suit and not by way of writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

6. The Appellant, in the course of its business activities, exported steel coils to M/s. Abdul Zafar Ghulam at Nacala, in Mozambique (for short 'the importer') in August 2006 and raised an invoice No. MV/028/08/2006 on the importer for an amount of US$ 581,841.65 dated 25.08.2006. Appellant received part payment in relation to the above-mentioned invoice on 18.10.2006, 20.10.2006, 08.11.2006 and 17.11.2006, on the basis of the credit advice raised by the SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai from time to time. On 02.11.2006 the Appellant was informed of the export collection payment advice by the State Bank of India for US$ 199,959.74.

7. The Appellant stated that after two and a half years on 07.03.2009 State Bank of India, Mumbai, sent a letter to the Appellant with reference to the credit entry of US $ 199,959.74 dated 02.11.2006 to Appellant ECFC account and advised that credit was erroneously passed on to the SBI's Nostro account by Bank of America and that the SBI had marked a lien on the Appellant's EEFC account (pending rectification). Few correspondence and meetings took place between the parties on this aspect. Later, the Appellant received a letter on 22.10.2009 from the SBI calling upon the Appellant to restore the credit of US$ 199,959.74 within few days failing which, the Appellant was informed, they would initiate further steps. Yet another letter dated 28.10.2009 was also received by the Appellant from the bank calling upon it to restore the credit of US$ 199,959.74 along with overdue interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of credit to the date of re-payment i.e. Rs. 48,18,149/- Later on 29.10.2009 the bank lifted the lien and debited Appellant's EEFC account (EURO No. 10937619705), realized the amount of Rs. 94,56,094/-.

8. We have gone through the writ petition as well as the various affidavits filed by the parties including the counter affidavit filed by the Bank of America and the report of the Chief Operating Officer, submitted following the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2012. The fact that emerges is that the Appellant was maintaining a Current Overseas Account with the State Bank of India, Cuffe Parade Branch, Mumbai. In August 2006 it exported steel coils to the importer at Mozambique. The export documents were not routed through the SBI and SBI was neither the collecting bank, nor the bills were discounted with SBI Mumbai. Any foreign remittance to overseas branch, Cuffe Parade would carry the said branch code which is 047991 in addition to the beneficiary's name.

9. The SBI, Foreign Department, Kolkata (SBI, FD, Kolkata) maintains several Nostro accounts with various foreign banks for transacting business for global exporters, wherein large number of debit and credit transactions take place. The SBI, FD, Kolkata on 02.11.2006 received the remittance advice from the Bank of America in favour of the Appellant's account at "Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai". The SBI, FD, Kolkata, as instructed by Bank of America sent the amount to Bank of India on 03.11.2006. The Bank of India, in turn, informed the SBI, FD, Kolkata that they do not have any account of the Metro Exporter (the Appellant) which fact was, in turn, informed to the Bank of America. The Bank of America on 09.11.2006 recalled the funds and accordingly the SBI, FD, Kolkata refunded the amount to Bank of America on 13.11.2006.

10. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, while reconciling its account with the SBI, FD, Kolkata, in the year 2009, came to know that the amount which was credited in the account of the Appellant was re-called by the Bank of America in the year 2006 itself, and therefore, the amount was not available with SBI, FD, Kolkata. SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai, then on 6.3.2009 marked a lien on the Appellant's EEFC account. In other words, the SBI, Cuffe Parade Branch had credited an amount of US $ 199,959.74 in the Appellant's EEFC account erroneously, contrary to the advice made by Bank of America, which is clearly reflected in the letter dated 07.03.2009 sent by the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai to the Appellant, which reads as under:

STATE BANK OF INDIA
Overseas Branch, World Trade Centre,
Post Box No. 16094, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-
400005
Tel: 22189262, 22189161, Fax: 221844328, 22188550
Email: sbi04791@sbi.co.in
Cable: OSBRANDY-MUMBAI, Branch Code: 4791

Dated 07.03.2009

The Managing Director,
Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.
132, Kakad Chambers,
Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai-400019

Dear Sir,

Credit entry of USD 1,99,959,74 dated 02.11.2006 to your EEFC Account

We refer to the above amount credited to your EEFC account and have to advise that the credit was erroneously passed on to us by Bank of America (BOA). They had claimed from our FD Deptt. Kolkatta citing that the same was meant for Bank of India and not for our NOSTRO account.

Accordingly, our FD Deptt. Kolkata had repaid the amount to BOA on 13.11.2006 at their request. Due to this amount credited by us to your EEFC account remained unreconciled in the close of corresponding credit.

As the matter is old and we are required to square off the above outstanding NOSTRO unreconciled entry from our books, we are in the process of verifying our old records. In the meanwhile we request you to submit us the full details of the amount credited to your account to enable us to take a view. We further advise that we have today lien-marked your EEFC account pending rectification of our outstanding entry. Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
Chief Operating Officer.

11. SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai, as already stated, on 29.10.2009 lifted the lien and debited Euro 1.36 lakhs and realized Rs. 94 lakhs from the Appellant. We have to examine whether the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai or even the SBI, FD, Kolkata had ever received US$ 199.959.74 in the SBI's account sent by the importer to the Appellant. The stand of the bank is that the amount had never come to the SBIs account either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, but in the account of Bank of India.

12. We have to first examine, before dealing with the main issue, what is actually meant by SWIFT Message and what is meant by Nostro account and whether the SBI, FD, Kolkata or the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai had got any control over the Nostro account maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America when the advice given by the Bank of America states "Bank of India A/c Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.", instead of "SBI". The importer, in this case had made a payment of US$ 581.841.65 meant for the Appellant, but one part of the said amount i.e. US$ 199.959.74 was received by the SBI, FD, Kolkata in Nostro account of Bank of America, New York with remittance advice to Bank of India.

SWIFT:

13. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), established in the year 1973, is a non-profit making co-operative society organized under the Belgian Law with its headquarters in Brussels. SWIFT operates an international financial message system which enables payment instructions and related messages, including statements, foreign exchange and money market confirmations, collections. SWIFT, therefore, deals with transfer of relevant payment messages. (For further details, see Paget's Law of Banking, Twelfth Edition, Page 304)

14. Bank of America sent an Electronic SWIFT Message dated 01.11.2006 to SBI, Overseas Branch, which reads as under:

15. SWIFT Message, referred to above, would indicate that Nostra Account No. CDTD/006550692214 was maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America. On receiving the electronic SWIFT Message from Bank of America, the SBI, FD, Kolkata sent the amount to the Bank of India because that was the advice given by Bank of America. Bank of India then through their null and void SWIFT Message dated 3.11.2006 informed the Bank of America that they did not have any account in the name of 'Metro Exporters' (the Appellant herein), the said communication is extracted herein:

16. Bank of America, in turn, sent a recall message dated 3.11.2006 to the SBI, FD, Kolkata, which reads as under:

17. Bank of America then, on the basis of the debit authorization from the SBI, FD, Kolkata debited the Nostro account No. 6550692214, which is reflected in the communication dated 13.11.2006 and the same reads as under:

18. The above communication would clearly indicate that the SBI, FD, Kolkata has maintained a Nostro account No. 6550692214, with Bank of America. It was on the debit authorization of Bank of America, the SBI, FD, Kolkata debited the amount of US$ 199,939.74 from its Nostro account.

INTERNATIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER

19. An international fund transfer occurs with either the payer's or the payee's bank, or both banks, located in a country other than that of the currency of the transfer. Most international funds transfers are credit transfers and they operate in a similar way to domestic credit transfers, although international credit transfers generally involve greater use of correspondent (intermediary) banks. Furthermore, unlike a domestic credit transfer, an international funds transfer may be subject to more than one law. Each account relationship in the transfer - for example, as between the payer and his own bank, the payer's bank and a correspondent bank, the correspondent and the payee's bank and a payee's bank and the payee -may be subject to its own applicable law which, in each case, may be different from the law governing the underlying obligation between the payer and the payee.

20. In international funds transfers, each payment message, whether between the payer and his bank, the payee and his bank, or the banks themselves, may be communicated orally, in writing, or by electronic means. In the past, overseas or cross-border inter-bank payment messages were sent by airmail, telegram, or telex, whereas now most banks communicate with their overseas, or cross-border counterparts using the telecommunication network operated by SWIFT.

21. An international funds transfer may be either onshore or offshore. The transfer will be onshore where either the payer's bank or the payee's bank is located in the country of the currency of the transfer and offshore where neither bank is located in the country of the currency of the transfer.

[From the Law of Bank Payments - Third Edn. (Michael Brindle Raymond Cox) Sweet & Maxwell, 2004]

22. SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata, maintains several Nostro accounts with various foreign banks for transacting global business. Nostro account is an overseas account which is held by a domestic bank in the foreign bank or with the own foreign branch of the Bank. For example, accounts held by State Bank of India with Bank of America, New York is Nostro account of State Bank of India in Bank of America.

23. The SBI, FD, Kolkata, in the instant case, has opened a Nostro account with Bank of America, an account which is Nostro for one bank is Vostro for another. So when, State Bank of India, FD opens a Nostro account with Bank of America, it is Vostro for State Bank of India and Nostro for Bank of America.

NOSTRO AND VOSTRO ACCOUNTS:

24. This banking principle is well articulated in the above-mentioned book and we extract the same as under:

(a) Onshore transfers

Where the transfer is onshore, the payer's bank and the payee's bank may be correspondents, i.e. one maintains an account with the other, thereby allowing bilateral settlement between them. In such cases, the nostro account is usually denominated in the foreign currency and the vostro account in the domestic currency. Thus, for example, where a London bank maintains a US dollar account at a New York bank, the account would be nostro on the books of the London bank and vostro on the books of the New York bank. Inter-bank payment between the correspondents would appear as a credit to the account on the books of the payer's bank and a debit to the account on the books of the payee's bank. In the case of a US dollar payment from the New York bank to the London bank, the New York bank credits the vostro account and the London bank debits the nostroaccount, but where the US dollar payment is from the London bank to the New York bank, the London bank credits the nostroaccount and the New York bank debits the vostro account. The movement of credit balances in these US dollar transfers can be illustrated as follows:

(b) Account transfers between correspondent banks

(a) US$ transfer from New York to London

(b) US$ transfer from London to New York

Where the payer's bank and the payee's bank are not correspondents, it will be necessary to employ the services of at least one correspondent bank. Where funds are transferred from the payer's bank located overseas to the payee's bank located in the country of the currency, the payer's bank will employ a correspondent bank in the country of the currency to transfer funds to the payee's bank. Typically, the transfer between the local correspondent and the payee's bank will be through the local clearing system, but where the payer's bank and the payee's bank use the same local correspondent the transfer will be through account adjustments on the local correspondent's books. Where funds are transferred from the payer's bank located in the country of currency to the payee's bank located overseas, the payer's bank will transfer funds to the local correspondent of the payee's bank, typically through the local clearing system, and that correspondent will complete the transfer to the payee's bank.

25. We may, bearing in mind the above-mentioned principles of international banking, examine the point of controversy. Appellant, as already indicated, used to export goods to Abdul Zafar Ghulam (importer). Appellant used to bank with State Bank of India's Overseas Branch for a number of years. Appellant used to export the goods directly and submit documents to State Bank of India and it was for the bank to claim payment and report the transaction to Reserve Bank of India to claim export benefits. In the instant case, SBI, FD, Kolkata records would indicate that on 25.8.2006, the Appellant had raised an Invoice No. MV/028/08/2006 and shipped the goods directly to the importer at Mozambique, Nigeria and subsequently lodged the documents with the State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The Appellant on 2.11.2006 submitted a copy of the export bills to SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai to see the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in "Smart Screen Reconciliation" (SBI used to offer credit entry in SSR Software/Swift Message received from Bank of America, who had been crediting the amounts from time to time in the foreign currency denominated Nostro accounts maintained with them by the State Bank's Foreign Department, Kolkata) and in good faith credited the above-mentioned amount to the account of the Appellant on the same date i.e. 2.11.2006.

26. The SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata received US$ 199,959.74 in the Nostro account of Bank of America with remittance advice, but the swift message advising actual transfer of funds by Bank of America had gone to "Bank of India, Mumbai" rightly, instead of "State Bank of India, Mumbai". Bank of America, in its statements, referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, had correctly informed the credits, but the mistake in naming the Bank of India might have occurred either at the end of Bank of America, City Bank New York, United National Bank, London, AL Zarooni Exchange or at the level of the Importer, but, of course, not at the end of SBI, FD, Kolkata or SBI, Mumbai. The Bank of India had informed the Bank of America and also the SBI, FD, Kolkata that they have no account in the name of the Appellant. Consequently, the Bank of America recalled the fund on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount from the Nostro account of State Bank of India on 13.11.2006. Since Nostro account has been maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata with Bank of America having the Account No. 006550692214 legally, the SBI, FD, Kolkata had no option but to return the funds to Bank of America as the amount was recalled by the Bank of America since it was the remitter.

27. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, however, committed a mistake when the Appellant had submitted copies of the export bills to it. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, after seeing the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in the "Smart Screen Reconciliation" (SSR Software Mumbai), evidently in good faith credited the said amount to the account of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. which was meant for Bank of India. Bank of India had no account in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd., hence that Bank had, in turn, informed the Bank of America as well as the State Bank of India. Consequently, the Bank of America had recalled the funds on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount from the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America on 13.11.2006. In other words, an amount of US$ 199,959.74 had never come into the credit of State Bank of India, either at Kolkata or Mumbai, at any point of time. The amount, as already stated, was credited by Bank of America in the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America and that the Bank of America had credited the amount in the account of "Bank of India A/c Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.", not in the credit of SBI, FD, Kolkata or Mumbai. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, of course, might have committed a mistake in crediting the amount in the Appellant's account. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai or the SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata, it may be true, had no control over the US$ 199,959.74 which was lying in Nostro account maintained by SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America. But the question is whether the SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai was right in debiting Euro 1.36 lakh and realizing Rs. 94 lakh from the account of the Appellant, on 29.10.2009, after a period of more than two years, eating away the valuable time of the Appellant to proceed against the importer to recover the amount, if the Bank was at fault

28. The Bank, of course, has a right to recover the money paid under a mistake as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as under:

72. Liability of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion.- A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.

29. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar-Ul-Nissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0007/1966: AIR 1967 SC 540. In that case, this Court had held that if a third party, by mistake deposits the money in account of some other person, as soon as the money is deposited in the account of such third person, who is a customer of the bank, the money becomes the money of customer, and it is not open to the bank in such circumstances, without obtaining the consent of the customer, to reverse the entry of credit made in his account and in effect pay back the money to the person who had deposited it, even though it might have been deposited by mistake. In this connection, we may refer to a judgment in United Overseas Bank v. Jiwani (1977) 1 All ER 733, wherein the Defendant had an account in Switzerland in which there was a credit of US$ 11000. The Defendant intended to purchase a hotel as an investment. The Bankers in Switzerland sent by telex US$ 11000 to London bankers at the instance of the Defendant and also an advice confirming the telex. The London bank by a mistake credited two sums of US$ 11000 to the Defendant. Later, when the Defendant enquired about its balance, it was shown to be about US$ 32000. The Defendant purchased a hotel out of the amount with the London Bankers. Facts would reveal, but for this balance shown, he would not have been able to purchase the hotel. The bankers rectified its error. Consequently, there was a debit balance of US$ 9000 as against the Defendant. Plaintiff bank demanded the money of the overdraft. It was held by the Court that the extra money credited to the Defendant's account was under mistake of fact and the bank was entitled to recover it.

30. In R.E. Jones Ltd. v. Waring and Gillow Ltd. (1926) AC 670, the House of Lords upheld the principle of Kelly v. Solari (1841) 9 MW 54 stating that however grossly negligent a payer may be and whatever lapses he may be guilty of, he is entitled to recover if he had paid the money under a mistake of fact, provided always that he owes no duty to the payee not to make a mistake. In Thomas Abraham and six Ors. v. National Tyre and Rubber Co., Kottayam MANU/SC/0027/1972 : (1973) 3 SCC 458, this Court held that the law implied an obligation to repay the money which is an unjust benefit.

31. We are of the view, even if the amount was credited by the Bank to the Appellants' account by a mistake, the question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bank is justified in marking a lien on the Appellants' EEFC account, thereby realizing the amount paid. Bank, as already stated, had credited the amount in the Appellants' EEEC account on 2.11.2006 and, so far as the Appellants are concerned, their claim as against the importer stood satisfied, since the same forms part of a series of transactions. The question is whether the Bank can, after a lapse of more than two years, that is on 6.3.2009, could mark a lien on the Appellants' EEFC account and later receive amount by making a debit entry on 29.10.2009 for an aggregate amount of Euro 1,36,027.

32. Facts, in this case, clearly indicate, so far as importer is concerned, he had already paid the amount and the SBI, Foreign Department, Kolkata had received the amount in the Nostro account of Bank of America with remittance advice to Bank of India, instead of SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. Appellant was also informed on 2.12.2006 of the export collection advice by the SBI for US$ 199,959.74 and the Appellant received the amount. Bank might have committed a mistake, but now it would be impossible for the Appellant to recover the amount from the importer since, so far as the importer is concerned, it had paid the amount. If the SBI, Overseas Branch had not given credit of the amount, then, Appellant could have proceeded against the importer at the earliest opportunity, but now the question is whether the Appellant should suffer for the mistake committed by the Bank, to which our answer is in the negative.

33. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, to the Appellant. Bank is directed to comply with the order within one month from today. However, we make it clear that it is open to the SBI to use their good offices to follow up the matter with the Bank of America or Bank of India or any other entity, which is in receipt of control of subject money and recover the amount, if the amount is still available, for which, of course, the Appellant cannot raise any objection.

34. The Appeal is allowed as above, however, there will be no order as to costs.

Print Page