JUDGMENT INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6.3.1999 which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1987 whereby the defendant/appellant i.e. State Bank of India and their agents were restrained from deducting any amount from the salary of the plaintiff towards the payment of the amount outstanding in the debt of the son of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff Shambhu Dayal Verma was employed with the State Bank of India at the Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi. His son Sunil Dutt Verma had opened a current account with the Jaipur Branch of the State Bank of India; he had taken an overdraft in the said current account. Sunil Dutt Verma, had failed to make the payment in the overdraft facility availed of by him. The defendant i.e.the State Bank of India had pressurized the plaintiff that the amount due against his son would be adjusted against the salary due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.25225.65 in instalments but on the undertaking that no interest should be charged. The bank started deducting a sum of Rs.250/- per month from his salary. The defendant i.e. the State Bank of India without confirming the waiver of interest continued to deduct this amount from the salary of the plaintiff. Legal notice dated 25.10.1983 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant informing him that the interest had not been waived; but to no avail. Present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant bank from deducting this amount was accordingly filed. 3. Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court endorsed this finding. The finding had been answered while dealing with the three issues which had been framed by the Trial Judge. The said finding in the impugned judgment had been returned as follows: “………….Apparently the argument of the defendant/appellant is based upon the document on the Ex.PD-3,PD-4, DW/P-2 given by the plaintiff. The case of the appellant is that these undertaking is based on the PD-3, PD-4 and DW/P-2. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff has given these undertaking voluntarily without any pressure so he can not claim any relief of injunction restraining the defendant/appellant to deduct the amount from the salary. The case of the appellant is that these undertaking is based on the PD-3, PD-4 and DW/P-2. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff has given these undertaking voluntarily without any pressure so he can not claim any relief of injunction restraining the defendant/appellant to deduct the amount from the salary. I have gone through the main document relied by the counsel for the defendant Ex.PD-4 which reads as under:- The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch Dear Sir, Personal market segment overdraft in current A/C No.12/18098 in the name of Sh.Sunil Dutt Verma. With reference to my discussions with Manager (Accounts), New Delhi Main Branch. I confirm as under:- 1. I agree to the bank recording alien on my provident fund balances including Bank’s contribution in respect of the amount due to the bank from the current A/C No.12/18098 in the name Sh.Sunil Dutt Verma at Jaipur Branch. 2. I agree to increase the instalment of the repayment Rs.300/- immediately and Rs.400/- after 6 months and Rs.500/- p.m. after another 6 months. As already requested by me to the bank I again request that no interest should be charged on the overdraft. Yours Faithfully, (SHAMBHU DAYAL) Clerk S.B.I. N.D. main branch Dt.17.10.83 7. It is established on the record that in the undertaking, it is categorically mentioned that no interest should be charged from the plaintiff. Thus the defendant/appellant can not be permitted to deduct the amount contrary to the undertaking. I agree with the ld. trial court where it is held that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further evident from the record that the undertaking was given by the plaintiff in which he was agreeable to take the liability of his son subject to the condition that if interest is waived. The power to waive the interest is admittedly with the bank the bank failed to waive the interest but if in the undertaking the plaintiff was not agreeable to pay the interest the same could not be deducted from his salary therefore the plaintiff was entitled for the injunction prayed for.” 4. This is a second appeal. After its admission, two substantial questions of law were formulated on 28.2.2000, they read as follows: “1. This is a second appeal. After its admission, two substantial questions of law were formulated on 28.2.2000, they read as follows: “1. Whether there was breach of any obligation by the appellant as against the respondent entitling the respondent to seek perpetual injunction? 2. Whether it could be said that the appellant had waived his right to claim interest on the amount which the respondent had undertaken to pay?” 5. Both these substantial questions of law have been answered in the finding in the impugned judgment. These findings call for no interference. The plaintiff had voluntarily undertaken to get the outstanding amount due from his son to be deducted from his salary; in this voluntarily undertaking which had been furnished by the plaintiff, it had been mentioned that no interest should be charged from the plaintiff; the defendant bank was thus estopped from deducting this amount which is clearly contrary to this undertaking furnished by the plaintiff. The defendant bank was acting upon this undertaking in terms of which the amount was being deducted from the salary of the plaintiff the same undertaking had also clearly stated that the interest would not be charged from the plaintiff; in these circumstances, the defendant bank was rightly restrained from deducting interest from the salary account of the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of the two courts below do not call for any interference. They cannot be in any manner said to be perverse. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.