1 it appears that respondent No.
1 Company herein of a sum of Rs.
b to direct the Petitioner herein to credit a sum of Rs.
1245 of 1993 in the Bombay High Court wherein it has been prayed as under 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.
6001.65.
1 the said account is to be operated jointly by G.L. Bhatia and Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No.
1,95,000/ was drawn on the appellant bank.
425395 for Rs.
The Respondents arc directed to credit sum of Rs.
Limited, respondent No.
The case of the appellant bank is 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.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal filed on behalf of respondent No.
1 claimed reimbursement of the said sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
1 on the basis of cheque No.
It is number disputed that the said cheque is from the Cheque Book issued to respondent No.
1 claims that the said signature is number of Ashok Chattopadhyay and the same is forged.
1 on September 3, 1992.
Shri P.H., Parekh, the learned companynsel appearing for the respondents, has, on the other hand, urged, that this appeal is directed against the interim order only and the main Writ Petition is still pending adjudication before the High Court and the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition would be gone into by the High Court in the light of the objections that are raised by the appellant bank.
1 companypany regularly visited the Branch for the banking transactions, and one of such employees is one Mr. Jadhav.
Thereupon the respondent on April 21, 1993 filed a Writ Petition Writ Petition No.
95,000/ with interest thereon at the rate of 18 from the date of the said amount had been withdrawn from the account.
1 that there was companylusion of bank staff with an outside unknown person for payment of the cheque and it was asserted that it was obvious negligence on the part of respondent No.
I thereupon asked the said Mr. Jadhav, who had companye to companylect the pay in front of me, which was duly done by him.
95,000/ was debited to the account of respondent No.
In accordance with the said order of the High Court the appellant bank credited a sum of Rs.
95.000/ from the appellant bank on the basis that the signature of Ashok Chattopadhyay on the cheque was forged and thus the appellant bank was liable to reimburse the said amount paid by the appellant bank from the account of respondent No.
Shri Rana, the learned companynsel for the appellant bank, in the first place, has urged that the dispute between the parties relates to the liability of the appellant bank to reimburse respondent No.
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 the appellant bank, was filed on behalf of appellant bank.
1 was making false allegations against the appellant bank.
1 the sum of Rs.
The other signature purports to be of Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No.
95,000/ was presented for cash with drawal.
1 on July 9, 1993.
1, on the said cheque is forged.
Respondent No.
1 against the said cheque.
In the said affidavit it is stated I say that the employees of the Petitioner No.
The appellant bank has also denied the allegations made by respondent No.
95,000/ in their Current A C No.
Race Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt.
95,000/ in the current,account No.
318 or direct the petitioner Bank to make payment of the respondent No.
The said claim of respondent No.
1 by the appellant bank.
1 therein, has been operating Current Account No.
1, at Police Station at Cuffe Parade, Bombay on September 4, 1993 and the matter is being investigated by the police.
1 was companytested by the appellant bank on 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.
The said cheque admittedly companytains the signature of G.L. Bhatia.
On 26th of August, 1992 a cheque bearing No.
The said signature is on the face of the cheque as well as on the back.
318 during the pendency of the Writ Petition on the respondent number 1 herein furnishing an indemnity for the same.
Thereupon the appellant bank lodged a First Information Re port with regard to the alleged forgery, as claimed by respondent No.
95,000/ debited to the account of respondent No.
1 number to keep the Cheque Book in the proper custody and that the respondent No.
425395 dated August 26, 1992 for a sum of Rs.
425395 dated August 26, 1992 that was encashed by the appellant bank which is claimed to be forged in the sense that the signature of Ashok Chattopadhyay, the Managing Director of respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellant bank has filed this appeal.
As per the mandate of respondent No.
The said Writ Petition was placed for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court on July 7, 1993 and the following order was passed on that date C. Rule.
95,000/ to the account of respondent No.
C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
One bearer cheque bearing No.
318 at the said branch of the appellant bank.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The said cheque was encashed at the said branch of the appellant bank on August 26, 1992 and the amount of Rs.
From the companynter affidavit of Capt.
Bank of Maharashtra, hereinafter referred to as the appellant bank, is a nationalised bank having a branch providing banking facilities at Nariman Point at Bombay.
This fact was brought to the numberice of the appellant bank by respondent No.
1 has with drawn a substantial part of the said amount leaving a balance of about Rs.
The affidavit filed by R.V. Pinglay the cashier appears to be prima facie false and an after thought.
