IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25511 of 2009(H)
1. K.VIKRAMAN, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KADAKKAVOOR
... Respondent
2. H.D.F.C.BANK LTD., KENTON TOWERS,
3. BANKING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :SRI.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI (KARIKKAMURI)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/02/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 25511 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd 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:-