New Delhi, Sep 30 — The Delhi High Court has directed ICICI Bank to reverse a transaction of Rs 3,89,981 that was inadvertently transferred by a wholesale firm to the wrong beneficiary, observing that the recipient failed to substantiate its claim that the payment was correctly made to it.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the plea filed by M/s MK Wholesale, which had sought reversal of the transaction effected on November 23, 2023.
Advocate Ujwal Ghai, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the transfer was the result of a bona fide mistake and that the amount was intended for M/s V.K. Enterprises but was wrongly transferred to M/s V.K. Traders.
The petitioner immediately informed the recipient and requested reversal of the amount. The petitioner also informed its bank, which in turn approached ICICI Bank and requested reversal of the transaction.
However, since the amount was not reversed, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court. During the proceedings, counsel for ICICI Bank submitted that when the bank sought clarification, M/s V.K. Traders had stated that the amount had been correctly paid to it.
In its order, the High Court recorded that on July 18, 2024, M/s V.K. Traders had been granted an opportunity to file documents substantiating its claim that the amount was correctly paid to it.
“Despite more than 2 years neither any document has been filed by respondent No. 4 nor is anybody appearing on behalf of it,” Justice Singh observed.
The High Court also took note of an indemnity bond dated November 24, 2023, issued by the petitioner's banker in favour of ICICI Bank, undertaking to indemnify the bank against any liability, loss or damage arising from reversal of the payment.
“The said indemnity bond shows the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner as well as the support of respondent No. 2,” the order said.
In view of these circumstances, the High Court directed ICICI Bank to reverse the transaction effected on November 23, 2023, bearing UTR No. IDIBR52023112336321946, for an amount of Rs 3,89,981. It further directed that the petitioner and its bank would be bound by their undertaking and would bear the consequences if the amount was wrongly reversed.
The petitioner had also sought interest on the amount. However, the High Court declined the request, stating that “there was no fault attributable to any of the respondents and it was an inadvertent mistake on part of the petitioner.”