No. 6/02.03.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. S. S. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Shanti Ranjan Hazra, the Ld. Advocate are present.

Heard Mr. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant who contends that Forum below acted illegally in as much as the Bank retransferred the money back from the Personal A/c of the partners to the Current A/c on objection being raised by other partners who are also account holders of the Current A/c.  In support of such contention Mr. Banerjee contended that though admittedly operation of the Current A/c. was by ‘either jointly or separetely’ but on objection having been raised by the other account holders – partners, the Bank thought it fit to reverse the transactions to reach a situation as it was before the transaction itself.  Mr. Banerjee further contended that the partners cannot take out the money from the business account to transfer it to the personal account of some of the partners and, therefore, the Bank was obliged to return it to the Current A/c on objection raised by other account holders.  Reference was made to various findings of the Forum below.  Next contention of the Appellant is that transfer of money from Current A/c to personal A/c was not complete as condition was imposed by Bank asking the holders of personal A/c not to withdrawn the money.

Mr. Hazra, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent contended that the Complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Current A/c. to Personal A/c. on the basis of operation instruction as ‘either or survivor’ and, therefore, the Bank could not retransfer the money from the Savings A/c to the Current A/c even when objection was raised by other account holders subsequently.  Mr. Hazra argued that the partners who are also joint account holders of the Current A/c, having agreed to the system of operation, cannot raise objection as regards one transaction and that too after the transaction is completed.  The contention of the Appellant that the transaction in respect of the sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Current A/c to the personal A/c was not complete as it was conditional, is strongly denied as this money transaction has been shown in the Personal A/c and also in the Current A/c and, therefore, the same could not be said as conditional transfer and not complete transaction.

Upon considering the respective contentions of the parties we find that in the complaint itself the Complainant has stated that this Current A/c was to be operated by partners either jointly or separately.  In the Written Objection the O.Ps did not dispute the said contention nor they have come with statement as regards some other operation system in respect of the said Current A/c.  Therefore, the transfer of the sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Current A/c to the Personal A/c has not been shown by the Bank as illegal or irregular which justify its subsequent transactions as made.

With regard to the contention of the Appellant that the transfer was not complete as it was made conditional, we find that the basis of said contention of the Bank is that it has instructed the Complainants not to withdraw the money.  Therefore, even if such condition was imposed, the said cannot result in incomplete transaction.  Such condition imposed unilaterally whether could be imposed is also a question.  But even if it is held it was a restriction for withdrawal of the money by the operators of the personal A/c, there is no allegation that money was even withdrawn.  In any event this could not operate as a bar on the account holders to operate their own account.

In respect of the last contention of the Appellant that other account holders of the Current A/c raised objection, we find that when admittedly a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was transferred from the Current A/c by the persons who were authorized to operate it, the subsequent raising of objection by other account holders could not authorize the Bank to take money out from the Personal A/c of the partners and that too without any instruction from the account holders of the said Account.

In above view of the matter we do not find any irregularity in the findings of the Forum below and we affirm the judgement.  The appear is, therefore, dismissed and there is no order as to cost.