TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner is having business dealings with M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore in Tamilnadu. In the course of business transactions, M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd. has issued a cheque bearing No.726190, dated 05.04.2012, for an amount of Rs.24,15,365/-, towards part payment for the purchases made by the said Firm from the petitioner. The petitioner is an account holder in the 2nd respondent-Bank with account No.022302210002513. It is the case of the petitioner that when he presented the cheque issued by M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, the said cheque was honoured and an amount of Rs.24,15,365/- was transferred to his account, and subsequently, he issued cheques to third parties towards the amounts payable by h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately, he has contacted the Manager of UCO bank branch at Guntur, where the petitioner is maintaining the account, and requested the branch to freeze the account lying to the credit of the petitioner, by issuing a letter dated 23.04.2012 to that effect. It is further stated in the counter that M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., which has issued instructions for stopping the payment, objected to the action of respondent-bank in passing the cheque issued in favour of petitioner and filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai, before whom, he has explained about crediting of amount in the petitioner's account by mistake and oversight, upon which, the Banking Ombudsman passed an award, dated 07.09.2012. In the counter, it is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa V. Mohan 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 734 (SC). On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for respondents that the cheque issued in favour of petitioner was post- dated one i.e. cheque bearing No.721690, dated 05.04.2012, for an amount of Rs.24,15,365/-, but even much before the said date, M/s.Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, which has issued the said cheque to the petitioner, has issued letter, dated 02.04.2012, which was received by the 3rd respondent on 03.04.2012, for stopping the payment. It is stated that the bank has committed a mistake by not uploading it in the system for stop-payment alert, and due to oversight, when the petitioner has presented ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they have not uploaded it in the system for stop-payment alert, and due to the same, by oversight, the cheque, which was presented by the petitioner, was honoured and the amount was credited to his account. But when the same was noticed, immediately, the 3rd respondent has contacted the 2nd respondent and issued a letter, dated 23.04.2012, for freezing the account of the petitioner. Even by that time, certain amounts were already withdrawn by the petitioner, and only an amount of Rs.11,70,102/- was lying to the credit of his account at Guntur branch. It is also to be noticed that in this case, when the 3rd respondent-bank has failed to comply with the stop- payment instructions issued by M/s. Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles (P) Ltd., the said F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 72 of the Indian Contract Act, this Court is of the view that as the 3rd respondent-bank has committed an inadvertent mistake, it has rightly issued the letter dated 23.04.2012, to the 2nd respondent for freezing the account of the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa (2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 734 (SC), the issue involved in the said case relates to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-bank in the case of ....