M/S SANJAY KUMAR MADDHESIYA THEKEDAR, THROUGH ITS PROPERITOR SANJAY KUMAR MADDHESIYA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/42113/2024 · 2025-02-16
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vipin Chandra Dixit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 109840 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 109840 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22331-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42113 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Sanjay Kumar Maddhesiya Thekedar, Through Its Properitor Sanjay Kumar Maddhesiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the Indian Bank to refund Rs.2,40,000/- to the petitioner within such reasonable time as indicated by this Court.
3. It transpires that the petitioner is a contractor and had to remit a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to Ambuja Cement towards performance invoice(Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by Ambuja Cement. This performance invoice contains account number in which there appears to be manipulation. The amount of Rs.2,40,000/- has been credited to the account number which is indicated in the RTGS form by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the said amount has been credited to wrong account. A police report for Cyber Crime has also been registered.
4. Considering the nature of dispute involved, we do not deem it expedient for this Court to issue any direction to the bank to pay the amount once it is clearly observed that the bank has only credited the amount in the account number which was indicated by the petitioner himself in the RTGS form. In the event, the petitioner has been duped by some cyber fraud, remedy to the petitioner would be to pursue criminal proceeding. The writ petition would not lie for such purposes, at the first instance.
5. Leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue appropriate statutory remedy, this writ petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 P.P. Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad