M/S V Sons Distributors Throu. Its Partner Pawankumar Vishwanath Jindal And Anr vs. Union Bank Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. V. Sons Distributors & Anr., filed a writ petition seeking the release of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 62,12,625.00 held with the respondent, Union Bank of India. The FDR was furnished as collateral security for a bank guarantee availed by the petitioner. The bank refused to release the FDR, citing a demand of Rs. 54 Lakhs plus GST towards processing charges and other fees, as per the terms of the sanction letter dated November 10, 2020. The petitioner sought a declaration that the non-release of FDRs was illegal and arbitrary, and prayed for the release of funds, refund of wrongfully debited processing charges with interest, and compensation for financial loss.
Held
The Court held that the relief prayed for in the petition was purely a money claim. It further observed that the issues involved disputed questions of fact arising under the contract of a Bank Guarantee and the terms and conditions of the 'Sanction Letter'. The Court opined that it was not possible to grant relief on such a money claim in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it would require evidence to be led by the parties. Consequently, the Court did not entertain the petition. The petitioner's remedy to file a Civil Suit or resort to other appropriate legal proceedings was kept open, with all contentions of the parties expressly reserved.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a purely money claim arising from a contractual dispute concerning a bank guarantee and its terms and conditions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the bank's actions in withholding the FDRs and debiting charges were illegal and arbitrary, warranting High Court intervention. They sought the release of funds and compensation. Respondent's contention: The respondent bank argued that the dispute involved complex questions of fact arising from the contract of bank guarantee and the sanction letter, which required evidence to be led by the parties. Therefore, it was not amenable to the summary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
23-WP-1152-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2025 M/s. V. Sons Distributors & An.r ...Petitioners Versus Union Bank of India ...Respondent _______ Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh i/b SKS Juris for Petitioners. Mr. Nainesh Amin for N. N. Amin & Co., a/ w Mr. Rahul Prajapati, for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE: 26 MARCH 2025 P.C.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this petition.
This petition is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs: "(a) To issue any writ or order or declaration, declaring that nonpayment/non-relese of the amount of FDRs to the Petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and same be released immediately. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent Bank to immediately release the Petitioners' funds of Rs.62,12,625.00 (Sixty Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five Only) held as Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and any other amounts wrongfully withheld. (c) Direct the Respondent Bank to refund the wrongfully debited processing charges along with in
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.