JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—In this matter an order was passed by this Court on 111-1996 in CMP No. 135 of 1995 and CMP No 30 of 1996 in RFA No. 135 of 1995 directing release of half of the amount which was kept in fixed deposit with the respondent-bank to the claimant in the proceedings through counsel Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Based on that order the Registrar issued a memo under No, HHC Acctts. 315 TDR) A/95 dated 28-2-1996 to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Shimla informing him of the order of the Court that a sum of Rs. 31,226, out of a total of Rs. 62,452, be released to Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for making further payment to Shri Krishan Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram, resident of village Johron, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. That memo was forwarded by the said advocate, Ms. Devyani Kuthiyala, to the respondent alongwith an endorsement therein in which she had requested the respondent to issue Demand Draft/Account Payees in the name of Krishan Lai son of Shri Daulat Ram and hand it over to the bearer, namely, Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, who was duly authorised by her in that behalf and whose signatures were attested below. We find in that letter that Shri Tara Singh Chauhan had signed and it was counter signed by Ms. Devyani Kuthiala. 2- On receipt of this memo, with the endorsement of the advocate, the respondent insisted upon the presence of Ms?. Devyani Kuthiala in the Bank in order to collect the said draft The Bank Manager-respondent did not choose to handover the draft to Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, who was representing Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate. The said advocate made a complaint to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association and the Secretary thereof, Shri Ramakant Sharma, wrote a letter on 1-3-1996 to the Registrar of this court. He mentioned therein that the officials of Bank of Baroda misbehaved with the member of the Association, namely, Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, while getting the release of amount ordered by this Court. He also referred to the Misbehaviour with another member of his Association by the officials of the Bank of India, In these proceedings it is not necessary to refer to that aspect of the matter. He also referred to the Misbehaviour with another member of his Association by the officials of the Bank of India, In these proceedings it is not necessary to refer to that aspect of the matter. When the Association sent the complaint to the Registrar, a copy of the said complaint was marked to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Shimla. On receipt of the said copy on 11-3-1996 the Branch Manager addressed a letter to the Registrar stating that Joint Manager of the Bank represented that the Advocate, in whose favour this Court ordered for payment, had never visited the branch and, therefore, the Registrar was requested to advise the concerned Advocate to present herself to receive the payment on her/his clients behalf. Thereafter, according to Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, she went to the Bank again on !6th March, 1996 personally and requested the Bank officials for issuing the Bankers Cheque or an Account Payee/Demand Draft in the name of her client Krishan Lai son of Shri Daulat Ram. According to her, the Bank authorities not only refused to issue the same but also misbehaved and were dis-courteous as she had made a complaint to the Registrar about! the Misbehaviour with Shri Tara Singh Chauhan. She has also stated that she was also detained in the Bank for about one and half hours and the orders of this Court were not complied with. She returned back without getting the Demand Draft or Account Payees Cheque and made a complaint to the Registrar on March 25, 1996. On this complaint the proceedings have been initiated by this Court. 3. In the reply filed by the respondent after referring to the earlier letter, it is stated that when the advocate visited the Bank on 16-3-1996 the Bankers Cheque was made in her name, in accordance with the tenor of the Courts Order, for Rs. 31,226/-and she wanted that the same be made in the name of her client. It is further stated that the orders were specific to release the amount to her, she returned back with the Fixed Deposit Receipt alongwith the refund order issued by the Registrar promising that she will suitably get amended it as to the name of payee but ?he never returned and on receipt of summons on 9-5-1996 from this Court, the respondent learnt about these proceedings. In Para 6 of the reply, the respondent expressed regret about the whole incident for misunderstanding and has tendered un-conditional apology in the matter, Alongwith the reply, copies of two documents have been produced by the respondent ; one xerox copy of Bankers Cheque Register and Bankers Cheque. It is seen there from that on 16-3-1996 an entry is made containing No. 0143907 and the name of Ms Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate, having been written earlier for the sum of Rs 31, 226 has been mentioned and thereafter a slip having No 0143907 is found pasted therein and in the last column Cancelled is also entered. The other document produced alongwith the reply is the xerox copy of Account Payee Bankers Cheque said to have been offered to Ms Devyani Kuthiala on 16-3-1996 4. On one aspect of the matter, we find that on the very first occasion when the advocate, Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, approached the bank through Shri Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, she committed an error in requesting the Bank to issue Demand Draft/Account Payee Cheque in the name of her client Sbri Krishan Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram While the order of Court merely says that the amount should be released to the respondent-claimant through counsel Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, the memo issued by the Registrar is very specific to make the payment to Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate, for making further payment to Shri Krishan Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram. Hence, the Bank was well within its limits to say that the Cheque or Draft shall be issued only in the name of the advocate and not in the name of her client, Shri Krishan Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram, But the Bank did not make any offer to issue any Cheque/Demand Draft in the name of the advocate. It is seen that the Bank insisted upon the appearance of Ms, Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate, in person for receiving the Cheque That conduct on the part of the Bank was highly improper. It was open to the respondent-Bank Manager to have made an offer to Mr Tara Singh Chauhan to issue the Cheque in the name of Ms. Devyani Kuthiala and hand-over the same to said Shri Tara Singh Chauhan but the Bank did not do so. It insisted merely on the personal presence of Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate in the Bank, 5. Devyani Kuthiala and hand-over the same to said Shri Tara Singh Chauhan but the Bank did not do so. It insisted merely on the personal presence of Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate in the Bank, 5. It is stated by learned Counsel for the respondent that the matter being a money matter, it was necessary that the person concerned should receive the cheque personally We do not accept this contention. To make payment by an Account Payee Cheque/Demand Draft, the Cheque/Draft can be handed over to any person who represents the person concerned. In this case, the person representing Ms Devyani Kuthiala, Advocate, was an advocate practising in this Court In insisting on the presence of Ms Devyani Kuthiyaia for receiving the Cheque, the conduct of the Bank Manager in that behalf is highly condemnable, 6. It is also alleged by Ms. Devyani Kuthiala that on 16th March, 1996 she was detained for about one and a half hours without being issued a Cheque She wanted the Cheque in the name of her client and not in her name, According to the respondent-Bank Manager, Bankers Cheque was made out in the name of Ms. Devyani, Kuthiala but she refused to take is with her. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondent that the entry in the Bankers Cheque is genuine one. We are not prepared to make any comment in that behalf but the original Register has been produced before us in which at page 53 the relevant entry is found and the Cheque said to have been prepared has also been stapled and a portion of Cheque containing No. 0143907, which was torn off is pasted at page 53 in the Register. This matter will require further evidence for the purpose of enabling us to decide on this aspect of the matter. 7, It must be pointed out that the conduct of the Bank Manager on 16-3-1996 would only be a cause for some other action and not for contempt proceedings. In these proceedings, we are only concerned with the question whether there was a willful disobedience on the part of the respondent-Bank Manager in carrying out the orders of the Court. 7, It must be pointed out that the conduct of the Bank Manager on 16-3-1996 would only be a cause for some other action and not for contempt proceedings. In these proceedings, we are only concerned with the question whether there was a willful disobedience on the part of the respondent-Bank Manager in carrying out the orders of the Court. As we have pointed out earlier that Ms Devyani Kuthiala had been insisting upon a Cheque being issued in the name of her client but as per the memo issued by the Registrar, the Cheque could not be issued in the name of the client and the advocate could not succeed in getting the Cheque. Hence, in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent-Bank Manager to punish him for the contempt of Court. 8. However, we are constrained to observe that the behaviour of the respondent with the advocate of this Court is highly reprehensible We find that behaviour of the respondent on 29-2-1996 with Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan was not commendable and on 16-3-1996 too, when Ms Devyani Kuthiaia was made to wait for one and a half hour without issuing Cheque in compliance of the Courts order, it was not commendable one It is common knowledge that in the nationalized Banks the officials do not behave in a proper way and it is one such instance where the advocate of this court Ms, Devyani Kuthiala was made to wait for one and a half hours in the Bank without any purpose therefore. In the circumstances we condemn the conduct of the respondent with regard to his behaviour in this matter, as we have pointed out already. But we are not able to per suade ourselves to hold that the respondent is guilty of Contempt of Court and punish him therefor. Hence we discharge him from these proceedings It is open to Ms. Devyani Kuthiala and Mr Tara Singh Chauhan to take appropriate proceedings against the respondent-Manager of the Bank as may be available to them in accordance with law with regard to the conduct of the Manager. 9. We understand that instructions are already given to the Registrar of this court that the Bank of Baroda be delisted from the list of Banks for deposits being made by this court in various proceedings. 9. We understand that instructions are already given to the Registrar of this court that the Bank of Baroda be delisted from the list of Banks for deposits being made by this court in various proceedings. We reiterate the decision that no deposits of this court will be made in the Bank of Baroda in any proceedings whatever. 10. WE place on record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered by Mr. G. D. Venma, President of the Bar Association in this matter. Order accordingly.