Judgment :- R.K. Agencies Limited (the plaintiff, in short) instituted this suit on 3 April 1987 in this Court essentially claiming a decree for Rs.28,04,027.76/-, a declaration that the fixed deposit receipt no.11/190 dated 28 November 1984 and the proceeds thereof are free from any claim or lien thereon by the defendant, interim interest, interest on judgment, receiver, injunction, cost, further or other relief. After the institution of the suit the writ of summons was duly served upon the sole defendant, Central Bank of India (the defendant, in short) and after entering appearance the defendant eventually filed its written statement to contest the suit first in the month of May 2004 and thereafter reverified the written statement once more after its amendment in the month of August 2006. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint proceeds on the basis that “on or about 27 November 1984 the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with the defendant at its Office at 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta – 700 001” within the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was to be kept by the defendant in a fixed deposit account carrying usual interest. On or about 28 November 1984 “the defendant granted a fixed deposit receipt for the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.” On or about 1 December 1984 “a letter of lien on a printed form of the defendant was executed on behalf of the plaintiff purporting to create a lien on the said fixed deposit receipt for Rs.20,00,000/-.” “The plaintiff intended that the above sum of Rs.20,00,000/- would be transmitted to a foreigner’s account in London provided the permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained in that behalf ”. “As no permission of the Reserve Bank of India was forthcoming, the plaintiff instructed its advocate-on-record to demand the return of the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with all interest accrued thereon. The plaintiff’s advocate-on-record on the basis of the said instruction demanded the said sum with all accrued interest by a letter dated 28 May 1985. The defendant even after the said demand “refused to return the said sum” contending that it had “a lien on the amount of the fixed deposit and” was “not liable to return the same to the plaintiff”. The defendant even after the said demand “refused to return the said sum” contending that it had “a lien on the amount of the fixed deposit and” was “not liable to return the same to the plaintiff”. According to the plaintiff such contention of the defendant was and is not tenable in law and by such wrongful contention the defendant was and “is denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to obtain payment of the aforesaid money”. On a plain reading of the plaint it appears that the refusal of the defendant to return the amount covered by the said fixed deposit was wrongful and such refusal gave the plaintiff its cause of action and the plaintiff as such instituted the suit in this Court claiming the above relief. To meet the rather simple and straightforward case of the plaintiff the defendant in setting up its defence has said in its written statement that one, Ranjit Singh Sethia who was controlling two London based companies, namely S. L. Sethia Lyners Limited and Drumplace Limited, in fact, had arranged for deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- with the Calcutta main Office of the defendant through R. K. Agencies, namely the plaintiff herein and the said Sethia, the defendant and the plaintiff “throughout agreed and/or understood” that the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- would be transferred to the defendant’s branch in London “for meeting the decretal claims of the defendants against the said two companies” which, as aforesaid, were controlled by the said Ranjit Singh Sethia. In support of the above the defendant has relied on a letter dated 27 November 1984 written to the defendant by the plaintiff’s solicitor. In interpreting the purport of the letter, the defendant has further alleged that the said letter makes it clear that “the defendant/bank was given a lien over the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for an indefinite period pending clearance granted by the Reserve Bank of India for transfer of the said amount to London”. In support of the above arrangement the defendant has also relied on a letter of the solicitor of the said S. L. Sethia Lyners Limited. In support of the above arrangement the defendant has also relied on a letter of the solicitor of the said S. L. Sethia Lyners Limited. The defendant has also made it clear that the defendant was directed by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its power under Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 by its letter dated 5 September 1986 “not to allow withdrawal or payment of the amount in the said fixed deposit account and not to close or transfer the said amount to any other offices”. The entire defence of the defendant against the claim or the claims of the plaintiff is based on the above alleged arrangement and in basing its defence on the above arrangement the defendant has also asserted that “the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was received and/or held by the defendant with a lien thereon and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to make any demand for return of the said amount from the defendant for withdrawal of the said amount”. The defendant has also urged that the plaintiff is estopped from demanding the return of the said fixed deposit from the defendant as the plaintiff kept the said amount by way of fixed deposit with the defendant “for crediting the same to the foreigner’s account that is in the account of the said Ranjit Singh Sethia for meeting the decretal claim of the defendant ….. as and when permission” was obtained by the plaintiff from the Reserve Bank of India. Since the plaintiff, according to the defendant had not taken steps for obtaining the permission of the Reserve Bank of India as agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant the plaintiff could not be allowed to take the advantage of its own wrong and in breach of the terms of the so-called agreement between the parties. On the basis of the said two letters i.e. dated 27 November 1984 and 11 February 1985 the defendant has urged further that the plaintiff did not deposit the said sum “on its own account, but expressly as agent for the said Ranjit Singh Sethia, and as such the plaintiff” could not “demand the refund of the said sum”. The above, it appears, is the defence of the defendant in its written statement to the claims of the plaintiff. The above, it appears, is the defence of the defendant in its written statement to the claims of the plaintiff. However, the written statement was amended during the pendency of this suit and by such amendment the defendant tried to bring it on record a piece of advice of the Reserve Bank of India to the defendant dated 26 July 2006 to the effect that the fixed deposit in question “had been deblocked by the Reserve Bank of India with immediate effect”. The defendant also tried to introduce by way of amendment of the written statement a defence that by virtue of the said advice to the defendant by the Reserve Bank of India there was “no bar or legal objection to the transferring or adjusting or dealing with the said sum or rather the fixed deposit amount by the defendant any more”. For the sake of convenience the new defence that was introduced by the amendment of the written statement as contained in paragraphs 10 C, 10 D and 10 E thereof are set out below:- “10C. On receipt of the said advice, as there has been no bar or legal objection to the transferring and/or adjusting and/or dealing with the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, following and/or pursuing the finding, determination and declaration of the Hon’ble Court of Appeal Court if refusal of permission by Reserve Bank of India to transfer the said sum to a Foreigner’s account was illegal, then the amount was liable to be transmitted to the foreigner’s account, it cannot be refunded, the defendant remitted the said sum to the foreigner’s account, which has been transferred and/or taken over by the International Division of the defendant at Bombay, on the closure of the London branch of the defendant. All the assets and liabilities of the London branch of the defendant have been taken over by the said International Division on the closure of the London branch of the defendant. 10D. After remittance of the said sum as stated in the next preceding paragraph, the said sum was credited and/or absorbed towards the loss of the defendant in the London branch of the defendant in the account of Sethia Grant of Companies in the said London branch, being the foreigner’s account mentioned in the letter dated 27 November 1984 written by M/s. Khanna & Co. 10E. 10E. In the premises, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant inasmuch as in terms of the agreement between the parties, the amount deposited by M/s. Khanna & Co. has been credited and/or transferred and/or absorbed by the defendant to foreigner’s account as soon as the prohibitory order has been withdrawn by the Reserve Bank of India. As such, the said suit should be dismissed with costs.” In addition to the above, the defendant has said that the suit is also bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as according to the defendant disputes and/or questions involved in the suit cannot be adjudicated effectively and completely in the absence of the said Ranjit Singh Sethia, the said companies L. N. Sethia Lyners Ltd. And the Drumplace Ltd. and the Reserve Bank of India. On the basis of the above, the issues were framed. For the sake of convenience the issues framed by the Court on 9 January 2007 are set out below:- (i) Did the plaintiff create a lien for Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the defendant? (ii) If so, whether the creation of any lien, in the facts and circumstances of the case, required the permission of the Reserve Bank of India; if so, whether any such permission was obtained? (iii) Is the defendant liable to return the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon to the plaintiff? (iv) Was the defendant entitled to transfer or credit and/or appropriate the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of Sethia Group of Companies, being the Foreigner’s account, on the deblocking of the said sum by the Reserve Bank of India on 26 July 2006? (v) Does the plaint disclose any cause of action against the defendant? (vi) Is the suit as pleaded in the plaint, premature? (vii) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (viii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? Since the first four issues are closely connected and are based on the merits of the suit, for the sake of convenience I would deal with the said issues combinedly. On 27 November 1984, the plaintiff’s advocate-on-record wrote to the Chief Manager of the defendant at 33, N. S. Road, Calcutta on the plaintiff’s instructions with a request to encash a cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- and put the encashed amount in a short-term fixed deposit for six months carrying usual interest. On 27 November 1984, the plaintiff’s advocate-on-record wrote to the Chief Manager of the defendant at 33, N. S. Road, Calcutta on the plaintiff’s instructions with a request to encash a cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- and put the encashed amount in a short-term fixed deposit for six months carrying usual interest. The defendant was further requested to keep the fixed deposit receipt ‘under lien’. The said receipt would “continue to remain under lien with the defendant” and was to be renewed from time to time for identical periods pending the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The permission of the Reserve Bank of India was to be obtained in consultation with and under the advice of the defendant for crediting the said amount to the foreigner’s account. On 28 November 1984, the defendant granted the fixed deposit receipt acknowledging the deposit of the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The receipt, however, shows that the money was not transferable. It appears from one of the conditions, namely condition 5 of the said receipt that the payment of the deposit was to be made to the depositor only on surrender of the receipt duly discharged or to any person on behalf of the depositor if the discharge receipt was accompanied by a proper letter of authority but the payment would not be made before the due date marked on the receipt. On 1 December 1984, the solicitor of the plaintiff signed a printed form of the defendant by which, it appears, a lien was given on behalf of the plaintiff on the said fixed deposit amount “for the outstanding general balance ….. loan, current cash credit or other accounts of the plaintiff with the bank or for utilizing the proceeds thereof for adjustment of the various accounts of the plaintiff”, I would deal with this document a little later. On 28 May 1985, the solicitor of the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that the plaintiff would be obliged if the defendant had issued a pay order in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.20,00,000/- inclusive of interest accrued up to date with a further request to make over the same to the assistant of the advocate-on-record of the plaintiff. On 28 May 1985, the solicitor of the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that the plaintiff would be obliged if the defendant had issued a pay order in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.20,00,000/- inclusive of interest accrued up to date with a further request to make over the same to the assistant of the advocate-on-record of the plaintiff. It was also mentioned in the said letter as follows:- “Needless to add that the understanding for arrangement sought to be arrived at in terms of your letter dated 27 November 1984 was never acted upon and nothing definite was achieved between the parties”. It is clear from the above letter written on behalf of the plaintiff by its solicitor to the defendant that the plaintiff demanded the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- kept in the fixed deposit account with the defendant after expiry of six months or rather on the maturity of the fixed deposit as no permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained or could be obtained by then, at least this was the purport of the last three lines of the letter and I read the same as such. On a plain reading of the letter written on behalf of the plaintiff dated 27 November 1984 there is no or cannot be any doubt that on the instructions of the plaintiff the plaintiff’s solicitor asked the bank in the form of a request to keep the said amount in a fixed deposit account. Undoubtedly on the date of deposit or at any time thereafter the plaintiff had no other transactions with the defendant at all. The plaintiff had no other accounts in the defendant/bank and most importantly the plaintiff never owed any money to the defendant at any point of time at all. The word, or the expression ‘lien’ used in the said letter meant and means nothing as the defendant itself did not realize as to why such expression was used by the plaintiff’s solicitor in his letter at all. The defendant also did not quite realize what was meant by the expression “foreigner’s account” in the said letter nor the defendant sought any explanation at any point of time from the plaintiff as to what the plaintiff or rather plaintiff’s solicitor meant by the expression “foreigner’s account” in the first place. The defendant also did not quite realize what was meant by the expression “foreigner’s account” in the said letter nor the defendant sought any explanation at any point of time from the plaintiff as to what the plaintiff or rather plaintiff’s solicitor meant by the expression “foreigner’s account” in the first place. To my mind it could mean anything, but the bank did not care to know what particular account, admittedly of an undisclosed foreigner, was meant by that expression. The letter, however, said that the money that was kept by way of a fixed deposit with the defendant was to be credited in the “foreigner’s account”. It did not say anything else or more than that. A reasonable man would understand that expression to mean that the undisclosed foreigner would be entitled to that money. Once the money were credited to the foreigner’s account the foreigner, whoever he was, would or could claim ownership thereof. Why the defendant did not care to know as to what was meant by the foreigner’s account by the plaintiff’s solicitor in his letter dated 27 November 1984 cannot be appreciated at all with any reasonable and rational approach. The defendant, to say the least, acted extremely mechanically on the instructions of the plaintiff’s solicitor and kept the said money in a fixed deposit account for a period of six months as the amount deposited would mature for payment after expiry of six months from the date of deposit and the plaintiff as depositor was entitled to receive the money with interest accrued on the amount. However, what would have been the consequence if the Reserve Bank of India had granted its permission as mentioned in the said letter of the solicitor of the plaintiff dated 27 November 1984, is not an issue for consideration, as the Reserve Bank admittedly did not give any permission, or rather no permission was obtained or could be obtained by the plaintiff or the defendant on the date when the plaintiff’s solicitor made the first demand for repayment of the said fixed deposit amount with interest after expiry of six months from the date of deposit or at any time thereafter. It is an admitted position that on the date of the first demand for the payment no permission of the Reserve Bank of India as mentioned in the letter dated 27 November 1984 (Exhibit-D) was in existence. It is an admitted position that on the date of the first demand for the payment no permission of the Reserve Bank of India as mentioned in the letter dated 27 November 1984 (Exhibit-D) was in existence. Since no permission of the Reserve Bank of India was in existence and since the amount kept in the fixed deposit account could not be credited to the so-called “foreigner’s account” without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India, the defendant, in my opinion, was obliged to repay the said amount kept in the fixed deposit account of the plaintiff the moment the demand was made there for. The defendant could not retain or withhold the amount in question even for a day. The expression ‘lien’ used in the letter of the solicitor of the plaintiff dated 27 November 1984 meant really nothing and did not protect the defendant from its liability to repay the fixed deposit amount with interests as the plaintiff, as I have said above, was not in any way indebted to the bank on the date of the demand so that the defendant could exercise its general power of lien for withholding the fixed deposit amount even after the said demand of or on behalf of the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 171 of the Contract Act, or for that matter under any law. What is most important here is that the defendant did not claim any lien to retain or withhold the fixed deposit amount as a security for a general balance of the defendant, or for the purpose of adjustment of any dues of the defendant owed by the plaintiff at any point of time at all. In considering a case of a “fixed deposit” the Supreme Court in Anumati –V- Punjab National Bank, AIR 2005 SC 29 has said that a fixed deposit is repayable on the expiration of the agreed period. The fixed deposit receipt is merely a written acknowledgement by the bank that it holds a certain sum to the use of its customers. The bank is thus a debtor to the account holder in respect of the amount deposited - a debt which is repayable by the bank to the account holders with interest on the expiry of an agreed period. The bank is thus a debtor to the account holder in respect of the amount deposited - a debt which is repayable by the bank to the account holders with interest on the expiry of an agreed period. The amount that is kept as a fixed deposit is payable by the bank on maturity of the fixed deposit to the account holder or holders in order to obtain a valid discharge. In this case the Supreme Court was primarily concerned with a fixed deposit account which was jointly owned, namely by the husband and wife with an ‘either or survivor’ clause and the Supreme Court held that since the fixed deposit was not a debt due by the bank to the husband alone which could be set off by the bank against any claim that the bank may have had against him, the bank could not set off or adjust a debt due from one of the joint account holders, namely the husband alone without the consent of the other account holder, namely the wife. After considering the relevant authorities the Supreme Court also quoted with approval a Division Bench Judgment of the Lahore High Court, in Simla Banking and Industrial Company Limited, Ambala City –V- Mt. Bhagwan Kuar, AIR 1928 Lahore 316. In that case the father and the son were joint account holders of a fixed deposit amount which was payable to either or survivor, namely the father or the son. The son had borrowed money from the bank and the bank credited the amount due under the fixed deposit receipt to the overdraft account of the son. The father had to institute a suit against the bank for recovery of the amount due. The bank pleaded a general lien and claimed to have acted within its rights in appropriating the amount as it had done. The Division Bench was of the view that the action of the bank was neither supported by authority nor in law nor in equity. [See paragraphs 13, 14 & 17 at pages 32 & 33 of the report]. In Anumati (supra), the Supreme Court also approved two more decisions, one was a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the other an English decision of the Court of Appeal. [See paragraphs 13, 14 & 17 at pages 32 & 33 of the report]. In Anumati (supra), the Supreme Court also approved two more decisions, one was a decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the other an English decision of the Court of Appeal. In Nath Bank (supra), the Court was dealing with a case where there was a fixed deposit made by two persons, one of whom was indebted to the plaintiff. The fixed deposit was repayable on its maturity after 12 months to either or survivor. The Division Bench took the view that during the joint lives of the two account holders or at least until due demand for repayment of the money was made by the bank to the debtor - account holder the debt in the form of a fixed deposit receipt was that of the bank to the joint account holders and the bank could not set-off a debt due from one of the joint account holders against such a joint debt. In Hirschoran (supra), the Court of Appeal was primarily concerned with a joint deposit account opened by the husband and wife and the bank was authorized to accept the signature of either of them or of the survivor as a sufficient discharge for the repayment of the moneys deposited. This debt was attached by a third party in execution of a decree against the husband. Pursuant to the garnishee summons, the bank paid the husband’s decretal debt to the decree-holder. The Court of Appeal held that since the debt which the bank owed was not a debt due to the husband alone, but to him jointly with his wife, it could not be attached to answer the judgment against the husband. [See paragraphs 15 and 16 at page 33 of the report]. The Court of Appeal held that since the debt which the bank owed was not a debt due to the husband alone, but to him jointly with his wife, it could not be attached to answer the judgment against the husband. [See paragraphs 15 and 16 at page 33 of the report]. In Gurbax Rai – V- Punjab National Bank, AIR 1984, SC 1012, the Supreme Court in dealing with a plea of banker’s lien held that where a partnership firm pledged its goods against cash credit facility and the bank received certain amount from the insurer of such goods on account of destruction of a part of goods so pledged by fire, the bank was liable to give credit of the same in the cash credit account of the firm and the bank could not adjust the amount as it did for the pledged goods for wiping out separate dues of the individual partners. [See paragraph 11 at pages 1013 and 1014 of the report]. In the present case the defendant had miserably failed to show as it should have shown that the plaintiff was indebted to the bank or that the money of the defendant was due from the plaintiff in respect of the other account or accounts which were to be adjusted, or that the defendant could set off such dues for the purpose of adjustment or reduction of its dues from the plaintiff. The defendant has not done anything. The defendant in this case has miserably failed to make out such a case against the plaintiff at all. The plaintiff has not been shown to have been indebted to the bank in any way either on the date when the fixed deposit account was opened or thereafter. The defendant, as I have said above, in fact has not claimed any lien general or special at all for the purpose of retaining or withholding the fixed deposit amount at any point of time. What the defendant has done is that the defendant has taken the fullest advantage of an expression ‘lien’ used in the letter of the solicitor of the plaintiff, namely ‘Exhibit-D’ i.e. letter dated 27 November 1984 and tried to rest its defence only on that letter and that letter alone. What the defendant has done is that the defendant has taken the fullest advantage of an expression ‘lien’ used in the letter of the solicitor of the plaintiff, namely ‘Exhibit-D’ i.e. letter dated 27 November 1984 and tried to rest its defence only on that letter and that letter alone. In my opinion, the said letter did not and could not possibly authorize the defendant to withhold the plaintiff’s money for an indefinite period or for as long as the defendant could or can on the alleged plea that the plaintiff had created a lien in favour of the defendant by the said letter as the amount of the fixed deposit was to be transmitted to a foreigner’s account. I have already said that the letter in question does not even say that the money was to be transmitted for the purpose of adjustment of any debt of a foreigner due to the bank. The letter, on the other hand, says that the amount so fixed was to be credited in a foreigner’s account provided permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained for the purpose. In any event, when the plaintiff after expiry of six months from the date of deposit demanded repayment of the fixed deposit amount with interest through its solicitor, namely on 14 June 1985, the defendant was obliged to forthwith repay the said amount with interest as the money was deposited by the plaintiff for keeping the same in a fixed deposit account earning interest and as such the amount so fixed was payable on its maturity, namely after six months. The defendant could not withhold as it did utterly wrongly the repayment even for a day. As I have said above, the plaintiff was not, in any way, indebted to the defendant and, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to set off the said amount for either reducing its dues from the plaintiff, or adjustments. The plaintiff, however, never authorized the defendant to adjust the said fixed deposit amount or for using the said amount for repayment of any dues of the defendant from a foreigner including the said two foreign companies, namely L. N. Sethia Lyners Ltd. and the Drumplace Ltd. and/or the said Ranjit Singh Sethia who is alleged to have been in control of the said two companies at any point of time. I have found nothing in this proceedings which could or can even remotely suggest that the plaintiff at all authorized or had given its consent to adjust the said fixed deposit amount with the so-called dues of the defendant from a foreign company or a foreign body or for that matter anybody at all. In the case of Anumati (supra), Supreme Court held that when the fixed deposit account stood in the name of the husband and wife then the amount so fixed could not be a debt due by the bank to the husband alone and as such the bank concerned could not set off the amount so fixed jointly, namely the husband and wife against the bank’s claim “that the bank may have had against” the husband alone. In the present case, therefore, the defendant in the name of creation of a lien in its favour by the plaintiff could not set off or adjust any debt of a foreigner allegedly due to the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. As I have mentioned above, the Supreme Court in its judgment quoted with approval the judgment of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court that such action of the bank as in the present case could neither be supported “by authority nor in law nor in equity”. The defendant has not shown even for once that the plaintiff had ever given its consent to set off the fixed deposit amount against any alleged debt of the defendant’s branch in London or anywhere else due from a foreigner or a foreign company to the defendant. The above decisions said in no uncertain terms that in any event without the consent of the account holder of the fixed deposit the amount so fixed could not be adjusted or set off in any manner in order to liquidate or reduce or adjust the debt of a third person due to the bank. The so-called foreign companies, namely L. N. Sethia Lyners Ltd. and the Drumplace Ltd. and/or the person who is alleged to have been in control of the said foreign companies did not as they could not ever authorize the defendant to use the “fixed deposit amount” of the plaintiff for the purpose of adjustment or set off or reduction of their alleged debt allegedly due to the defendant at any point of time. The combined reading of the three letters written on behalf of the said foreign companies by their solicitors, namely dated 11 February 1985 (Exhibit-5), 4 July 1985 (Exhibit-4) and 30 May 1986 (Exhibit-L) make the position absolutely clear. In other words, the combined reading of these letters written on behalf of the so-called foreign account holders who were allegedly indebted to the defendant’s branch Office in London do not even remotely suggest that they wanted the defendant to use the fixed deposit amount for the purpose of reducing or setting off or adjusting their so-called debt or debts due to the defendant’s branch in London. What would have been the position had the Reserve Bank given its permission to credit the amount to a “foreigner’s account” is not a matter for adjudication in this suit at all as admittedly the Reserve Bank of India did not as it could not grant or give any permission as sought by the plaintiff at any point of time. In view of the above, the defendant, in my opinion, most wrongfully and illegally by its letter dated 14 June 1985 (Exhibit-H) refused to repay the fixed deposit amount and asked equally, wrongfully and illegally the plaintiff to deal with the defendant’s “International Division (Central Office, Bombay) for any further clarification”. The defendant, in my opinion, also acted in complete breach of its fiduciary relationship with its customer, namely the plaintiff herein. The defendant had no authority nor was it empowered by any competent authority nor could it ask the defendant as it did utterly wrongly to approach the International Division of the defendant in Bombay for obtaining further clarification. The defendant, I find, having taken the fullest advantage of its position wrongfully deprived the plaintiff to obtain repayment of the defendant’s debt due to the plaintiff which the defendant could not or was not empowered to do under any provisions of law. The defendant even did not think it necessary to assign its reason for withholding the lawful dues of the plaintiff and in so doing the defendant being the debtor to the plaintiff in the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Anumati (supra), simply failed to discharge its debts to the plaintiff. The defendant even did not think it necessary to assign its reason for withholding the lawful dues of the plaintiff and in so doing the defendant being the debtor to the plaintiff in the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Anumati (supra), simply failed to discharge its debts to the plaintiff. The defendant did not give any reason for not repaying the fixed deposit amount on its maturity to the plaintiff even after demand as the defendant had no reasons to assign in support of its most wrongful decision of withholding repayment of the fixed deposit amount with interest to the plaintiff. On the above basis, the stand taken by the defendant, (and I must hasten to add here that the defendant went on taking different stands in different situations in dealing with the plaintiff in this case), in its letter dated 5 August 1985 for not releasing the fixed deposit amount was utterly wrong as the defendant I have held could not withhold the amount kept in the fixed deposit account especially when the plaintiff demanded repayment the fixed deposit amount with interest after its maturity. Equally and most importantly, the Reserve Bank in its letter to the defendant dated 14 January 1986 (Exhibit-B) made it very clear to the defendant that “the current exchange control regulation did not permit remittance from India towards recovery of dues of foreign borrowers of Overseas Branches of Indian banks from amounts held under lien in India.” The Reserve Bank of India as such was not in a position “to accede to the request of the bank”. The Reserve Bank of India, however, it appears, had no knowledge that the plaintiff in its letter dated 27 November 1984 said that the fixed deposit amount was meant for crediting the account of a foreigner, without naming who the foreigner was, provided the Reserve Bank of India granted permission therefor. In any event, the defendant after the above letter of the Reserve Bank could not contend any further even wrongly that it could still retain or withhold the fixed deposit amount of the plaintiff and use the same to recover its alleged dues of a foreign borrower at all because of the restrictions imposed by the Exchange Control Regulations. In any event, the defendant after the above letter of the Reserve Bank could not contend any further even wrongly that it could still retain or withhold the fixed deposit amount of the plaintiff and use the same to recover its alleged dues of a foreign borrower at all because of the restrictions imposed by the Exchange Control Regulations. Apart from the above, the Reserve Bank of India in its letter also wanted some important particulars which are contained in different clauses, namely (a), (b), (d) and (e) thereof. The defendant in its turn, however, failed to furnish any particulars at any point of time at all. Apart from the above three letters written on behalf of the said foreign companies by their solicitors to the solicitors of the London Branch of the defendant in London, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ranjan Deb appearing on behalf of the plaintiff had rightly drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 9 (1) and Section 26 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act in support of his submission that without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government the money kept by way of fixed deposit by the plaintiff, in any event, could not at all be transferred to any foreigner or foreigner’s account for the credit of any person outside India or for the purpose of meeting any debt or other obligation or liability - (i) of a person resident in India, and due or owing to a person resident outside India, or (ii) of a person resident outside India. In the instant case, however, the Reserve Bank of India in no uncertain terms declined to grant any permission for transfer of the amount in question at any point of time. I have, however, held that the defendant, in any event, was liable to repay the fixed deposit amount after expiry of six months from the date of deposit especially after the first demand made by or on behalf of the plaintiff on 28 May 1985. Needless to mention, however, that the defendant in spite of demand refused to repay the fixed deposit amount with interest and till date has not repaid the amount most wrongfully and illegally and taking the fullest advantage of its position to the utter detriment and loss to the plaintiff. Needless to mention, however, that the defendant in spite of demand refused to repay the fixed deposit amount with interest and till date has not repaid the amount most wrongfully and illegally and taking the fullest advantage of its position to the utter detriment and loss to the plaintiff. The defendant by its utter illegal act has deprived the plaintiff so far of its property, namely the money as it has most wrongfully and illegally refused to discharge its debt due to the plaintiff as held by the Supreme Court, inter alia, in Anumati’s case (supra). The view that I have taken, it is not necessary for me to consider what the effect was of the letter (i.e. Exhibit-A) of the Reserve Bank of India, dated 5 September 1986 to the defendant’s Branch at Calcutta as the said letter lost all its importance subsequently. The letter of the Reserve Bank of India, however, made it very clear that the Reserve Bank did not want the defendant to transfer the fixed deposit amount to any other account including foreigner’s account or to any other branch of the defendant. In any event, the Reserve Bank’s subsequent letter dated 26 July 2006 (Exhibit-M) to the defendant’s advocate-on-record made it clear that the defendant was not, in any way, restrained by the Reserve Bank of India from repaying the fixed deposit amount with interest which, I find, the defendant most wrongfully and illegally failed to do. What is most striking, however, is that in spite of the fact that the defendant could not transfer the amount to any foreigner’s account without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India or for that matter of the Central Government, the defendant most wrongfully and illegally taking the fullest advantage of its advantageous position, during the pendency of the suit without obtaining any leave of the Court “remitted a sum of Rs.20,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty Thousand only)” for crediting the same to the defendant’s alleged profit and loss account for the purpose of meeting the alleged loss of the defendant’s branch in London “on account of facilities to Sethia Group of Companies ….”. This sort of high-handedness on the part of the defendant cannot be and is not supported by any provisions of law or authority or order of the Court at all and go against all the banking norms. This sort of high-handedness on the part of the defendant cannot be and is not supported by any provisions of law or authority or order of the Court at all and go against all the banking norms. The defendant knew full well that in any event it could not transfer the amount to meet any alleged debt of a foreigner allegedly due to the defendant without the permission of the competent authority, namely the Reserve Bank of India. In this case the Reserve Bank of India admittedly did not grant such permission even then the defendant in utter abuse of its power being the debtor to plaintiff did transfer the amount to liquidate or adjust or reduce its alleged debt of a foreigner allegedly due to the defendant without even informing the plaintiff, let alone its permission. The defendant, in any event, could not, however, transfer as it did without the consent of the plaintiff being the creditor of the defendant. The contention of the defendant, or rather on its behalf that the foreign exchange regulation did not prohibit transfer of amount from one Indian Branch to a foreigner’s account in India for reducing or liquidating any debt of such foreigner allegedly due to the defendant, I must say, is utterly meritless. A foreigner’s account did not cease to be a foreigner’s account simply because the account was transferred or brought to India by the defendant as the branch of the defendant in London closed down its business in London permanently. The defendant could not simply deal with the money during the pendency of the suit without the leave of the Court. The defendant in any event, as I have held above, being the debtor to the plaintiff could not touch the fixed deposit amount let alone transferring the same to any foreigner’s account whether in India or elsewhere until the disposal of the suit. This act of the defendant was an act in utter desperation and I hold that the defendant did it with the sole object of depriving the defendant of its property, namely the money kept in the fixed deposit account permanently. I console myself by saying that the case in hand does not come up everyday before the Court of Law otherwise no depositors would feel safe in keeping their “monies” in the banks, or rather lose the “trust” in them. I console myself by saying that the case in hand does not come up everyday before the Court of Law otherwise no depositors would feel safe in keeping their “monies” in the banks, or rather lose the “trust” in them. The defendant, I must say, has contested the suit by raising utterly meritless contentions some of which are evident from the “written submissions” filed on behalf of the defendant only with the object of furthering its utter illegal act of withholding the plaintiff’s money, or rather for avoiding discharge its debt due to the plaintiff. The view that I have taken in adjudicating the suit on merits, the issues, namely (v), (vi) and (viii) are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Having tried and adjudicated the suit on merits I have no doubt that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties at all as the presence of either the Reserve Bank of India or the foreign companies including the said Sethia was not at all necessary for “effectively and completely” adjudicating and settling all the questions involved in the suit. Thus the issue, i.e. (vii) whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is also answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, there will be a decree as claimed in claims (a) and (b) of the plaint. There will also be a decree for interest on the above decretal amount of Rs.28,04,027.76/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of suit till the date of the decree, i.e. 03-02-2012. There will also be a decree for interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the above decretal sum of Rs.28,04,027.76/-from 04-02-2012 till the decree passed herein is satisfied. There will also be a decree for costs which I have assessed rather moderately even in the facts and circumstances of the present case at Rs.1,00,000/-and the plaintiff will be entitled to the assessed decretal costs over and above the Court fees that the plaintiff had paid at the time of institution of the suit. Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously. Urgent certified photocopy of the judgment and decree, if applied for, be given expeditiously.