IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.43054 Of 2017 (gm-res) Between :
M/S. TEEKAYS INTERIOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 OFFICE AT NO.22, N.J CHAMBERS VENKATASWAMY NAIDU ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI UMAR BAVA TEEKAY.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER BANK OF INDIA MANSOORABAD BRANCH MANSOORABAD HYDERABAD DISTRICT TELANGANA - 500 074.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE AT NO.C/5 G BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, STAR HOUSE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400 051.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BY ITS CYBER CRIME DIVISION, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, COMMISSIONER OFFICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI VIJAYKUMAR.P.L., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TRANSFER THE MONEY BACK TO THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is listed for hearing on interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for directions to the respondent No.1 viz., the Manager, Bank of India, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad, to transfer certain amounts to the petitioner’s account. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioner contends that his e-mail account was hacked and a phony e-mail was sent to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for transfer of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, and the respondent Nos.1 and 2, acting on such e-mail instructions, transferred a sum of Rs.4.50 lakhs to a certain account maintained in the name of M/s.Rohan Enterprises. As of the date of such hacking, the petitioner’s Managing Director was travelling outside India. However, on coming to know that his e-mail was hacked and fraudulent instruction was issued for transfer of amount to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the account of M/s. Rohan Enterprises, a complaint was lodged with the police. At the intervention of the police, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have frozen the account of M/s. Rohan Enterprises. But before such freezing of account, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 continue to hold Rs.3.50 lakhs and the petitioner is entitled for this amount.
3. The petitioner relying upon the aforesaid facts, which seemingly are not disputed by the respondents, has, relying upon C- report filed by the respondent No.3, sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 – Bank to transfer the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs lying to the credit of M/s. Rohan Enterprises to the petitioner’s account. A perusal of the C – report indicates that the jurisdictional police – respondent No.3 have filed C- report solely on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2, despite repeated communications, have not furnished the details of the persons to whose account the amount was transferred from the petitioner’s account fraudulently as alleged by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent No.1-Bank has opened an account in the name of M/s. Rohan Enterprises after compliance with the KYC norms and all details are available with the Bank. Further, the learned counsel disputes the statement by the investigating officer in C-report that information was sought for and not furnished. Be that as it may, C – report by the police on the ground that they have not been able to secure the details of the accounts from the respondents- Bank, would not entitle the petitioner for issuance of direction as sought for. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law to recover such money if indeed the petitioner is entitled to.
5. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration, and the same is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge SA