METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

A (Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2014) APRIL 23, 2014 B

H 64

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 65 INDIA Bank/Banking ~ International Banking - Funds transfer A - Transfer of payment messages - SWIFT Message - Nostro and Vostro accounts - Discussed.

The appellant-exporter had exported steel coils and received part payment against the invoice on the basis 8 of the credit advice raised by the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The appellant had been informed of the export collection payment advice by the State Bank of India for US $ 199, 959.74. Two and a half years later, the State Bank of India, Mumbai, sent a letter to the appellant with reference to the aforesaid credit entry of US$ 199, 959.74 to appellant's EEFC account and advised that credit was erroneously passed on to the SBl's Nostro account by Bank of America and that the SBI had marked a lien on the appellant's EEFC account (pending rectification). After exchange of correspondences, the bank lifted the lien and debited appellant's EEFC account, realizing an amount of Rs.94,56,0941-.

In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that the bank had no legal right to reverse a legal entry after having credited the same in the appellant's bank account and in any view, without obtaining the consent of the appellant, the entry should not have been reversed. F The respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the amount in question exclusively belonged to the Bank, which was deposited in the appellant's account by mistake and hence the same could be recovered by debiting the account of appellant which was a normal G banking practice done in good faith.

The question for consideration before this Court was whether the State Bank of India was right in debiting the account of appellant, after a long lapse of time, on the H

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

-A ground that the amount was wrongly credited into the appellant's account.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

1.2. In international funds transfers, each payment message, whether between the payer and his bank, the payee and his bank, or the banks themselves, may be communicated orally, in writing, or by electronic means. In the past, overseas or cross-border inter-bank payment messages were sent by airmail, telegram, or telex, whereas now most banks communicate with their overseas, or cross-border counterparts using the telecommunication network operated by SWIFT. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), established in the year 1973, is a non-profit making co-operative society organized under the Belgian Law with its headquarters in Brussels. SWIFT operates an international financial message system which enables payment instructions and related messages,

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 67 INDIA including statements, foreign exchange and money market confirmations, coUections. SWIFT, therefore, deals with transfer of relevant payment messages. [Paras 13, 20) [85-G; 77-D-E]

1.3. An international funds transfer may be either 8 onshore or offshore. The transfer will be onshore where either the payer's bank or the payee's bank is locateq in the country of the currency of the transfer and. offshore where neither bank is located in the country of the currency of the. transfer. ·[Para 21] [85-G] C-- 1.4. SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata, maintains several Nostro accounts with various foreign banks for transacting global b~siness. Nostro account is an overseas account which is held by a domestic bank in the foreign bank or with the own foreign branch of the D Bank. For example, accounts held by State Bank of India wjth Bank of America, New York is Nostro account of ,:. efate Bank of India in Bank of America. The SBI, FD, Kolkata, in the instant case, has opened a Nostro account with Bank of America, an account which is Nostro for one E bank is Vostro for another. So when, State Bank of India, FD opens a Nostro account with Bank of America, it is Vostro for State Bank of India and Nostro for Bank of America. [Paras 22, 23] [86-A-C]

A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation F AIR 1967 96; 1966 SCR 796; ABL International Limited and . another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Shri Val/abh Glass Works Limited and another v. Union of India and others (1984) 3 sec 362: 1984 (3) SCR 180 - cited. ·G

Paget's Law of Banking, Twelfth Edition, p.304 and Law of BankPayments - Third Edn. (Michael Bl-ind/e Raymond Cox) Sweet &Maxwell, 2004 - referred to. H

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A .2.1. The appellant used to export goods to Abdul Zafar Ghulam (importer) and used to bank with State Bank of India's Overseas Branch for a number of years. Appellant used to export the goods directly and submit documents to State Bank of India and it was for the bank B to claim payment and report the transaction to Reserve Bank of India to claim export benefits. In the instant case, SBI, FD, Kolkata records would indicate that on 25.8.2006, the Appellant had raised an Invoice No.MV/028/08/2006 and shipped the goods directly to the importer at c Mozambique, Nigeria and subsequently lodged the documents with the State Bank of India Overseas Branch, ·Mumbai. The Appellant on 2.11.2006 submitted a copy of the export bills to SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai to see the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in "Smart Screen 0 Reconciliation" (SBI used to offer credit entry in SSR Software/Swift Message received from Bank of America, who had been crediting the amounts from time to time in the foreign currency denominated Nostro accounts maintained with them by the State Bank's Foreign E Department, Kolkata) and in good faith credited the above-mentioned amount to the account of the Appellant on the same date i.e. 2.11.2006. [Para 25] [88-D-G]

2.2. The SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata received F US$ 199,959.74 in the Nostro _account of Bank of America with remittance advice, but the swift message advising actual transfer of funds by Bank of America had gone to "Bank of India, Mumbai" rightly, instead of "State Bank of India, Mumbai". Bank of America, in its statements had G correctly informed the credits, but the mistake in naming the Bank of India might have occurred either at the end of Bank of America, City Bank New York, United National Bank, London, AL Zaroone Exchange or at the level of the Importer, but, of course, not at the end of SBI, FD, H Kolkata or SBI, Mumbai. The Bank of India had rntormed

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 69 INDIA the Bank of America and also the SBI, FD, Kolkata that A they have no account in the name of the Appellant. Consequently, the Bank of America recalled the fund on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount from the Nostro account of State Bank of India on 13.11.2006. Since Nostro account has been maintained by the SBI, FD, B Kolkata with Bank of America having the Account No.006550692214 legally, the SBI, FD, Kolkata had no option but to return the funds to Bank of America as the amount was recalled by the Bank of America since it was the remitter. [Para 26] [88-H; 89-A-D] c 2.3. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, however, committed a mistake when the Appellant had submitted copies of the export bills to it. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, after seeing the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in the D "Smart Screen Reconciliation" (SSR Software Mumbai), evidently in good faith credited the said amount to the account of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. which was meant for · Bank of India. Bank of India had no account in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd., hence that Bank had, in turn, informed the Bank of America as well as the State Bank of India. Consequently, the Bank of America had recalled the funds on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount from the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America on 13.11.2006. In other words, an amount of US$ 199,959.74 had never come into the credit of State Bank of India, either at Kolkata or Mumbai, at any point of time. The amount was credited by Bank of America in the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America and that the Bank G of America had credited the amount in the account of "Bank of India Ale Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.", not in the credit of SBI, FD, Kolkata or Mumbai. SBI Overseas · Branch, Mumbai, of course, might have committed a mistake in crediting the amount in the appellant's H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A account. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai or the SBI Foreign Department, .Kolkata, it may be true, had no control over the US$ 199,959.74 which was lying in Nostro account maintained by SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America. [Para 27] [89-E-H; 90-A-C] B

3. The Bank, of course, has a right to recover the money paid under a mistake as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. Facts, in this case, however clearly indicate, so far as importer is concerned, he had already paid the amount and the SBI, Foreign Department, Kolkata c. had received the amount in the Nostro account of Bank of America with remittance advice to Bank of India, instead of SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. Appellant was also informed on 2.12.2006 of the export collection advice by the SBI for US$ 199,959.74 and the appellant received D the amount. Bank might have committed a mistake, but now it would be impossible for the appellant to recover the amount from the importer since, so far as the importer is concerned, it had paid the amount.. If the SBI, Overseas Branch had not given credit of the amount, then., E appellant could have proceeded against the importer at the earliest opportunity, but now the question is whether the appella~t should suffer for the mistake committed by the Bank, to which the answer is in the negative. [Paras 28, 32] [90-D; 92-C-F] F Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar-Ul-Nissa and others AIR 1967 SC 540: 1967 SCR 792 and Thomas Abraham and six others v. National Tyre and Rubber Co., Kottayam (1973) 3 sec 458 - referred to. G United Overseas Bank v. Jiwani (1977) 1 All ER 733; R.E. Jones Ltd. v. Waring and Gil/ow Ltd. (1926) AC 670 and Kelly v. Solari (1841) 9 MW 54 - referred to.

4. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, are grante~ to

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 71 INDIA the appellant. Bank is directed to comply with the order within one month. However, it is open to the SBI to use their good offices to follow up the matter with the Bank of America or Bank of India or any other entity, which is in receipt of control of subject money and recover the amount, if the amount is still available, for which, of course, the appellant cannot raise any objection. [Para 33] [92-G-H; 93-A]

Case Law Reference:

1966 SCR 796 cited Para 4 c (2004) 3 sec 553 cited Para 4

1984 (3) SCR 180 cited Para 4

1967 SCR 792 referred to Para 29 D

(1977) 1 All ER 733 referred to Para 30 (1926) AC 670 referred to Para 30

(1973) 3 sec 458 . referred to Para 30 E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2014.

Frdm the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2202 F of2DO!l

Dushyant Dave, Bharat Sangal, Sanaya Dadachanji, Saumya Agarwal, I. Abenla Aier for the Appellants. G J.P. Cama, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan, S. R. Patadia, Dua Associates for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.S. RADHAKRiSHtAAN, J. !· Leave granted. H

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A 2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai is right in debiting the appellant's EEFC A/c EURO No.10937619705 an amount of €136,027.03, after a long lapse of time, on the ground that it was wrongly deposited in the B appellant's account and driving the appellant to recover the amount by way of civil proceedings.

3. Writ Petition under Article 226 was filed by the Appellant challenging the action of the Bank which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it is a dispute which arose out of a C contractual relationship between the parties and hence the appropriate remedy for the appellant was by way of a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by way of special leave. D

4. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the remedy available to the appe:lant is to approach the civil court since the dispute arose is of contractual nature. Learned senior counsel submitted that since the State Bank of India is a nationalized bank and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable and the bank has no legal right to reverse a legal entry after having credited the same in the appellant's account. Learned senior counsel submitted that, in any view, without obtaining the consent of the appellant, the entry should not have been reversed. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation AIR 1967 96. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the writ petition is perfectly maintainable and the reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in ABL International: Limited and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others (2004) 3 sec 553 and Shri Vallabfl Glass Works Limited and another v. Union of India and others (1984) 3 sec 362.

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 73 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

5. Shri J.P. Gama, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-bank, explained the circumstances which led to the bank in reversing the entry. Learned senior counsel submitted that the amount credited in the appellant's account is not its, but the amount exclusively belonged to the Bank, which was deposited in the appellant's account by mistake, and hence could be recovered debiting its account, which is a normal banking practice and was done in good faith. Learned senior counsel submitted that only when the Bank debits an amount which exclusively belongs to the account holder, then only the bank needs consent of the account holder. Learned c senior counsel submitted that the Bank had a lien on the amount deposited in the appellant's account and it is that which could be debited from the appellant's account. Learned senior counsel submitted that, in any view, the High Court is justified in holding that even if the appellant has any grievance, the same 0 . could be remedied only through a regular civil suit and not by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

· 6. The appellant, in the course of its business activities, exported steel coils to Mis Abdul Zafar Ghulam at Nacala, in Mozambique (for short 'the importer') in August 2006 and raised an invoice No.MV/028/08/2006 on the importer for an amount of US$ 581,841.65 dated 25.08.2006. Appellant received part payment in relation. to the above-mentioned invoice on 18.10.200.6, 20.10.2006, 08.11.2006 and 17 .11.2006, on the basis of the credit advice raised by the SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai from time to time. On 02.11.2006 the appellant was informed of the export .collection payment advice by the State Bank of India for US$ 199,959.74. G

7Copy pinpoint7. The appellant stated that after two and a half years on 07.03.2009 State Bank of India, Mumabi, sent a letter to the appellant with reference to the credit entry of US $ 199,959. 74 dated 02.11.2006 to appellant ECFC account and advised that credit was erroneously passed on to the SBl's Nostro account H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 9 S.C.R.

A by Bank of America and that the SBI had marked a lien on the appellant's EEFC account (pending rectification). Few correspondence and meetings took place between the parties on this aspect. Later, the appellant received a letter on 22.10.2009 from the SBI calling upon the appellant to restore B the credit of US$ 199,959.74 within few days failing which, the appellant was informed, they would initiate further steps. Yet another letter dated 28.10.2009 was also received by the appellant from the bank calling upon it to restore the credit of US$ 199,959.74 along with overdue interest@ 18 p.a. from c the date of credit to the date of re-payment i.e. Rs.48, 18, 149/ - Later on 29.10.2009 the bank lifted the lien and debited appellant's EEFC account (EURO No.10937619705), realized the amount of Rs.94,56,094/-.

8Copy pinpoint8. We have gone through the writ petition as well as the D various affidavits filed by the parties including the counter affidavit filed by the Bank of America and the report of the Chief Operating Officer, submitted following the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2012. The fact that emerges is that the appellant was maintaining a Current Overseas Account'with the State E Bank of India, Cuffe Parade Branch, Mumbai. In August 2006 it exported steel coils to the importer at Mozambique. The export documents were not routed through the SBI and SBI was neither the collecting bank, nor the bills were discounted with . S.B.l Mumbai. Any foreign remittance to overseas branch, Cuffe F Parade would carry the said branch code which is 047991 in addition to the beneficiary's name.

9Copy pinpoint9. The SBI, Foreign Department, Kolkata (SBI, FD, Koll~ata) maintains several Nostro accounts with various foreign G banks for transacting business for global exporters, wherein large number of debit and credit transactions take place. The SBI, FD, Kolkata on 02: 11.2006 received the remittance advice from the Bank of America in favour of the appellant's account at "Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai". The SBI, FD, H Kolkata, ~s instructed by Bank of America sent the amount to

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 75 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J,] Bank of India on 03.11.2006. The Bank of India, in turn, A informed the SBI, FD, Kolkata that they do not have any account of the Metro Exporter (the appellant) which fact was, in turn, informed to the Bank of America. The Bank of America on 09.11.2006 recalled the funds and accordingiy the SBI, FD, Kolkata refunded the amount to Bank of America on E\, 13.11.2006.

10Copy pinpoint10. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, while reconciling its account with the SBI, FD, Kolkata, in the year 2009, came to know that the a'!1ount which was credited in the account of the appellant was re-called by the Bank of America in the year 2006 itself, and therefore, the amount was not available with SBI, FD, Kolkata. SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai, then on 6.3.2009 marked a lien on the appellant's EEFC account. In other words, the SBI, Cuffe Parade Branch had credited an amount of US $ 199,959.74 in the appellant's EEFC account erroneously, contrary to the advice made by Bank of America, which is clearly reflected in the letter dated 07.03.2009 sent by the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai to the appellant, which reads as under: · E "STATEl3ANK OF INDIA Overseas Branch, World Trade Centre, Post Box No.16094, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Tel:22189262, 22189161, Fax:221844328, 22188550 Email:sbi04791@sbi.co.in F Cable:OSBRANDY-MUMBAI, Branch Code:4791 Dated 07.03.2009 The Managing Director, Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. G 132, Kakad Chambers, Dr. Annie Beasant Road, .. Worli, Mumbai-400019 Dear Sir, H

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 9 S.C.R.

A Credit entry of USO 1.99.959.74 dAted 02.11.2006 to your EEFC Account

We refer to the above amount credited to your EEFC account and have to advise that the credit was erroneously B passed on to us by Bank of America (BOA). They had claimed from our FD Deptt. Kolkatta citing that the same was meant for Bank of India and not for our NOSTRO account.

Accordingly, our FD Deptt. Kolkata had repaid the amount c to BOA on 13.11.2006 at their request. Due to this amount credited by us to your EEFC account remai_ned unreconciled in the close of corresponding credit.

As the matter is old and we are required to square off the above outstanding NOSTRO unreconciled entry from our books, we are in the process of verifying our old records. In the meanwhile we request you to submit us the full details of the amount credited to your account to enable us to take a view. We further advise that we have today lien-marked your EEFC account pending rectification of our outstanding entry. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Chief Operating Officer" F

11Copy pinpoint11. SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai, as already stated, on 29.10.2009 lifted the lien and debited Euro 1.36 lakhs and realized Rs.94 lakhs from the appellant. We have to examine whether the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai or even the SBI, G FD, Kolkata had ever received US$ 199.959.74 in the SBl's account sent by the importer to the appellant. The stand of the bank is that the amount had never come to the SBls account either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, but in the account of Bank of India. H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 77 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

12Copy pinpoint12. We have to first examine, before dealing with the main A issue, what is actually meant by SWIFT Message and what is meant by Nostro account and whether the SBI, FD, Kolkata or the SBI, Overseas Branch, Mumbai had got any control over the Nostro account maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America when the advice given by the Bank of America B states "Bank of India A/c Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.", instead of "SBI". The importer, in this case had made a payment of US$ 581.841.65 meant for the appellant, but one part of the said amount i.e. US$ 199.959.74 was received by the SBI, FD, Kolkata in Nostro account of Bank of America, New York with c remittance advice to Bank of India.

SWIFT:

13Copy pinpoint13. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), established in the year 1973, is a non- D profit making co-operative society organized under the Belgian Law with its headquarters in Brussels. SWIFT operate_s an international financial message system which enables payment instructions and related messages, including statements, foreign exchange and money market confirmations, collections. E SWIFT, therefore, deals with transfer of relevant payment messages. (For further details, see Paget's Law of Banking, Twelfth Edition, Page 304)

14Copy pinpoint14. Bank of America sent an Electronic SWIFT Message F dated 01.11.2006 to SBI, Overseas Branch, which reads as under: WTX0010 PAGE 421857 Fulltran Report G WORK OF 11/01/06 RUN 11/07/06 04:32 BANK OF AMERICA -CONFIDENTIAL < < AIX VERSION 1.2 > > > H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A RCVD FROM CITIBANK N A NEW YORK NEW YORK

SENDER'S DOA # ***Message: NOT TESTED***

TRN REF #:20061101-00125666 B *** MESSAGE ENVELOPE*** (Bank: NYK) SRC:CHP CALLER SND DATED: 06/11/01 RPT# AMT:199,959.74 CUR:USD TRDR# TEST: DUE: TYPE: FTR/ FUNDS:S CHG:DB:N CD:N COM:X CBL:N c DBT P/0008 CDT D/006550692214 ADV:WIR DEBIT VAL:06/11/01 CREDIT VAL:06/11/01 DEPT: IDFMT STATE BANK OF INDIA CITI BANK N A DOLLAR RECONCILIATIONS, D , 19 FLOOR NEW YORK NEW YORK JEEVAN SUDHA 42/C, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU KOLKATA 700071, INDIA SNDR REF NUM: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS S0763050E5F401 E ORDERING BANK: AC 655892218 IS FOR ALL S/NBPAGB2L UNITED NATIONAL BANK DEBIT MT103 2, ROOK STREET AND RELATED REFUND ONLY LONDON, GB , F ORIG: BNF BANK:S/BKIDINBBBOS WIR:Y AL ZAROONI EXCHANGE BANK OF INDIA P 0 BOX 116348 (OVERSEAS BRANCH) AL SABKHA STREET MUMBAI, !NIDA . DEIRA DBAI (U.A.E.) BNF:/ CHG:S BK?N G METRO EXPORTERS PVT.LTD. ORIG TO BNF INFO: BIO AL TAWFEER TRADING LESS CHARGES ·***~CREDIT PAYMENT MESSAGE TEXT**** H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 79 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

Message Text A

Destination:

D/SBININBBFXD

STATE BANK OF INDIA B

DOLLAR RECONCILIATIONS, 19 FLOOR

JEEVAN SUDHA 42/C, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

KOLKATA 700071, INDIA c Output Time:12:29:32 Output sequence number:071446

Input: S/BOFAUS3N D BANK OF AMERICA, NA . NEW YORK-BRANCH'~ \

15Copy pinpoint15. SWIFT Message, referred to above, would indicate that Nostro Account No.CDTD/006550692214 was maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata for Bank of America. On receiving the electronic SWIFT Message from Bank of America, the SBI, FD, Kolkata sent the amount to the Bank of India because that was the advice given by Bank of America. Bank of India then through their null and void SWIFT Message dated 3.11.2006 informed the Bank of America that they did not have any account in the name. of 'Metro Exporters' (the appellant herein), the said communication is extracted herein:

"mid M061122-000689 current list status RATTACH type COMIN G Attached iid 3105-03NOV06 memo CLOSED CASE 3105-03NOV06

Next 22-NOV-06 H

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 9 S.C.R.

A PCRM468819

QQPCRM

Vf!FV MTP:199 CUR:USD AMT:199959.74 SRC:SWF- SWF B CRM

STX TRN:WTX/20061122-00064705 (01)

**AUTHENTICATED MSG** c FROM:/Ml-061122BKIDI NBBACOS5378814423

BANK OF INDIA (OVERSEAS BRANCH) D KOLKATA I KOLKATA, INDIA TO: /M0-061122BOFAUS3NBXXX5751696203 BANK OF AMERICA N.A. NEW YORK BRANCH E NEW YORK, NY 10048 (CUS'l'OMER SERVICE USE ONLY) DATE:061.122 ::199 CUSTOMER TRANSFER FREE FORMAT F MESSAGE

:20 SENDERS REF:4048/REM/AS/012

:21 RELATED 'REF:BOA3105-03NOV06 G :79 TEXT

REF YOUR MT-199 DTD.15.11.06 TO BKIDINBBCOS FOR CANCELLATION OF MT-103 DTD.01.11.06 FOR USD199.959.74 UNDER YOUR REF.2006110100125666 H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 81 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] IN FAVOUR OF METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. WE A HAVE ALREADY INTIMATED YOU THAT WE ARE NOT

EFFECT THE PAYMENT AND TREAT THE MT-103 AS NULL.AND VOID, B AS THE RECEIVER OF THIS MESSAGE WAS OUR MUMBAI OVERSEAS BRANCH, WE HAVE SENT ALL ORIGINAL PAPERS TO THEM FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. WITH THIS WE CLOSE OUR FILE. c REGARDS REMITIANCE. AMT:2006112200064705 11220700 WTX2006112200064705-1 D

WXB089841 11220405

IGATEWY\\llD:3105-03NOV06\MEMO:SWF 199959. 74 usd 199\ E MSN:061122-001034\AMT: 199959. 74\USDI EUPD By SYSTEM to Z8JR /CLOSED CASE3105- 03NOV /22-NOV-06 07:11 EATI By Z8JR /CLOSED CASE3105- 03NOV06 /22-NOV-06 08:28 F Attached to iid :3105-03NOV06"

16Copy pinpoint16. Bank of America, in turn, sent a recall message dated 3.11.2006 to the SBI, FD, Kolkata, which reads as under: G "Template name RTN-FULLRECALL Corr type SWF Queue NORMAL verify flat Y iid 3105-03NOV 06 party name STATE BANK OF INDIA CEDIT:SWIFTI H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 9 S.C.R.

A :CMAP : SWFHORT :DEST : TEMP : RTN-FULLRECALLSWF QQ NYKO .NYCS MTP:199 CUR:NOA AMT:0.00 SBININBB B STX a :TEXT:X :20: BOA3105-3NOV06 c :21: 2006110100125666 :79:PLEASE RETURN OUR PAYMENT DATED 01-NOV-06 REFERENCE 2006110100125666 PAYMENT, DETAILS AS FOLLOWS, AVOIDING D DUPLICATION. VALUE DATE 01-NOV-06 AMOUNT 199,959.74USD BENEFICIARY CUSTOMER METRO EXPORTERS PVT LTD. E ORDERING CUSTOMER AL ZAROONI EXCHANG PER REMITTER REQUEST PLEASE ADVISE US THE DATE YOU HAVE RETURNED THE PAYMENT, QUOTING F OUR REFERENCE BOA3105-03NOV06. REGARDS MNELLESIA HENRY BANK OF AMERICA WT INVESTIGATIONS G PHONE 646.733.4550 FAX 212-378-4900"

17Copy pinpoint17. Bank of America then, on the basis of the debit authorization from the SBI, FD, Kolkata debited the Nostro account No.6550692214, which is reflected in the communication dated 13.11.2006 and the same reads as H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 83 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] under: A

"mid mo61113-000610 current list status RATIACH type COMIN attached iid 3105-03NOV06 memo CLOSED CASE 3105-03NOV06 next 13-NOV-06 B PCRM450151 QQ PCRM RBKN MTP:199 CUR:USD AMT: 199959.74·SRC:SWF- ·.-· ..... -·

SWF c CRM STX TRN:WTX/20061113-00045762 (01) ** AUTHENTICATED MSG** FROM: /Ml-061113BOFAUS3NBXXX5734497703 D STATE BANK OF INDIA (FOREIGN DEPARTMENT) 'TATA CENTRE 43 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU RD KOLKATA (CALCUTIA), INDIA E TO: /M0-061113BOFAUS3NBXXX5734497703 BANK OF AMERICA N.A.A NEW YORK BRANCH NEW YORK, NY 10048 (CUSTOMER SERVICE USE ONLY) F DATE: 061113 :: 199 CUSTOMER TRANSFER FREE FORMAT MESSAGE : 29 SENDERS REF:E2/BOFA/407/06 G :79 TEXT: AS PER BANK OF AMERICA REQUEST UNDER 1REFERENCE MT 199 DATED 08 NOVEMBER 2006 WE HEREBY AUTHORISE YOU TO DEBIT NOSTRO Al H

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A C. NO. 6550692214 WITH VALUE DATE : 11 NOVEMBER 2006 WITH A SUM OF USD 199939.74 IN REVERSAL OF YR CREDIT FOR USD 199,959.74 DATED 01 NOVEMBER 2006 UNDER YR B TRANSACTION REF. NO. 2006110100125666

2. PLS AVOID DUPLICATION.

3. REASON FOR REFUND: FUNDS NOT MEANT FOR US. C REMITTING BANK REQUESTING REFUND.

4. DEDUCTION OF USO 20.00 REPRESENTS OUR HANDLING CHARGES.

5. PLS QUOTE OUR REFERENCE NUMBER IN D FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE

6. YR REF BOA 3105 - 03 NOV 06 AMI: 2006111300045762 11130251 E WTX2006111300045762-1 WXB670843 11122357 iGATEWY\\110:3105-0CNOV06\MEMO:SWF 199959.74 USD 199\ MSN: 061113-000363\AMT: 1999959L.74/USD\I .F ·EUPD BY SYSTEM to Z8JR I CLOSED CASE3105- 03NOV06 I 13-NOV-06 02:57 ·EATT BY Z8JR /CLOSED CASE3105-03NOV06 /14- NOV-06 09.17 G attached to iid: 3105-03NOV06"

18. The above communication would clearly indicate that the SBI, FD, Kolkata has maintained a Nostro account· No.6550692214, with Bank of America. It was on the debit authorization of Bank of America, the SBI, FD, Kolkata debited H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 85 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] the amount of US$ 199,939.74 from its Nostro account. A

INTERNATIONAL FUNDS TRANSFER

19. An international fund transfer occurs with either the payer's or the payee's bank, or both banks, located in a country other than that of the currency of the transfer. Most international funds transfers are credit transfers and they operate in a similar way to domestic credit transfers, although international credit transfers generally involve greater use of correspondent (intermediary). banks. Furthermore, unlike a domestic credit transfer, an international funds transfer may be subject to more than one law. Each account relationship in the transfer - for example, as between the payer and his own bank, the payer's bank and a correspondent bank, the correspondent and the payee's bank and a payee's bank and the payee - may be subject to its own applicable law which, in each case, may be different from the law governing the underlying obligation between the payer and the payee . .,.

20. In international funds transfers, each payment message, wrether between the payer and his bank, the payee and his bank, or the banks themselves, may be communicated orally, in writing, or by electronic means. In the past, overseas or cross-border inter-ba.nk payment messages were sent by airmail, telegram, or- telex, whereas now most banks communicate with t.heir overseas, or cross-border counterparts F. using the telecommunication network operated by SWIFT.

21. An international funds transfer may be either onshore or offshore. The transfer will be onshore where either the payer's bank or the payee's bank is located in the country of G the currency of the transfer and offshore where neither bank is located in the country of the currency of the transfer.

[From the Law of Bank Payments - Third Edn. (~ichael Brindle Raymond Cox) Sweet & Maxwell, 2004] H

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A 22. SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata, maintains several Nostro accounts with various foreign banks for transacting global business. Nostro account is an overseas account which is held by a domestic bank in the foreign bank or with the own foreign branch of the Bank. For' example, accounts held by B State Bank of India with Bank of America, New York is Nostro account of State Bank of India in Bank of America.

23. The SBI, FD, Kolkata, in the instant case, has opened a Nostro account with Bank of America, an account which is Nostro for one bank is Vostro for another. So when, State Bank C of India, FD opens a Nastro account with Bank of America, it is Vostro for State Bank of India and Nostro for Bank of America.

NOSTRO AND VOSTRO ACCOUNTS: D

24. This banking principle is wen articulated in the above- mentioned book and we extract the: same as under :

"(a) Onshore transfers

E Where the transfer is onshore, the payer's bank and the payee's bank may be correspondents, i.e. one maintains an account with the other, thereby allowing bilateral settlement between them. In such cases, the nostro account is usually denominated in the foreign currency and the vostro account in the domestic currency. Thus, for example, where a London bank maintains a US dollar account at a New York bank, ·the account would be nostro on the books of the London bank and vostro on the books of the New York bank. Inter-bank payment between the correspondents would appear as a credit to the · account on the books of the payer's bank and a debit to the account on the books of the payee's bank. In the case of a US dollar payment from the New York bank to the London bank, the New York bank credits the vostro account and the London bank debits the nostro account, H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 87 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] but where the US dollar payment is from the London bank A to the New York bank, the London bank credits the nostro account and the New York bank debits the vostro account. The movement of credit balances in these US dollar transfers can be illustrated as follows: B (b) Account transfers between correspondent banks

(a) US$ transfer from New York to London

New York ............. London c US$ account US$ account

·"vostro" "nostro"

credit debit D (b) US$ transfer from London to New York

London ................. New York

US$ account • US$ account E "vostro" "nostro"

debit credit

Where the payer's bank and the payee's bank are not correspondents, it will be necessary to employ the services F of at least one correspondent bank. Where funds are transferred from the payer's bank located overseas to the ·payee's bank located in the country of the currency, the payer's bank will employ a correspondent bank in the country of the currency to transfer funds to the payee's G bank. Typically, the transfer between the local correspondent and the payee's bank will be through the local clearing system, but where the payer's bank and the payee's bank use the same local correspondent. the H

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A transfer will be through account adjustments on the local correspondent's books. Where funds are transferred froni the payer's bank located in the country of currency to the payee's bank located overseas, the payer's bank will transfer funds to the local correspondent of the payee's B bank, typically through the local clearing system, and that correspondent will complete the transfer to the payee's ban~."

25. We m_ay, bearing in mind the above-mentioned principles of international banking, examine the point of controversy. Appellant, as already indicated, used to export goods to Abdul Zafar Ghulam (importer). Appellant used to bank with State Bank of India's Overseas Branch for a number of years. Appellant used to export the goods directly and submit documents to State Bank of India and it was for the bank to claim payment and report the transaction to Reserve Bank of India to claim export benefits. In the instant case, SBI, FD, Kolkata records would indicate that on 25.8.2006, the Appellant had raised an Invoice No.MV/028/08/2006 and shipped the goods directly to the importer at Mozambique, Nigeria and subsequently lodged the documents with the State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The Appellant on 2.11.2006 submitted a copy of the export bills to SBJ Overseas Branch, Mumbai to see the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name- of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in "Smart Screen F Reconciliation" (SBI used to offer credit entry in SSR Software/ Swift Message received from Bank of Amertca, who had been crediting the amounts from time to time in the foreign currency denominated Nostro accounts maintained with them_ by the State Bank's Foreign Department, Kolkata) and in good faith G credited the above-mentioned amount to the account of the Appellant on the same date i.e. 2.11.2006.

26. The SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata received US$ 199,959. 74 in the Nostro account of Bank of America with H

...

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 89 !NOIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

remittance advice, but the swift message advising actual transfer of funds by Bank of America had gone to "Bank of India, Mumbai" rightly, inste€ld of "State Bank of India, Mumbai". Bank of America, in its statements, referred to in the. earlier part of this judgment, had correctly'informed the credits, but the mistake in naming the Bank of India might have occurred either at the end of Bank of America, City Bank New York, United National Bank, London, AL Zaroone Exchange or at the level of the Importer, but, of_ course, not at the end of SBI, FD, Kolkata or SBI, Mumbai. The Bank of India had informed the Bank of America and also the SBI, FD, Kolkata that they have no c account in the name of the Appellant. Consequently, the Bank of America recalled the fund on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount from the Nostro ac6olmt of State· Bank of India on 13.11.2006. Since Nostro account has been maintained by the SBI, FD, Kolkata with Bank of America having the Account D No.006550692214 legally, the SBh FD, Kolkata had no option but to return the fundsJo Bank of America as the amount was recalled by the Bank of America since it was the remitter.

27. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, however, committed a mistake whe·n the Appellant had submitted copies E of the export bills to it. The SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai, after seeing the credit of US$ 199,959.74 in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) in the "Smart Screen Reconciliation" (SSR Software Mumbai), evidently in good faith credited the said amount to the account of Metro Exporters Pvt. F Ltd. which was meant for Bank of India. Bank of India had no account in the name of Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd., hence that Bank had, in turn, informed the Bank of America as well as the State Bank of India. Consequently, the Bank of America had recalled the funds on 9.11.2006 and recovered the said amount G from the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America on 13.11.2006. In other words, an amount of US$ 199,959.74 had never come into the credit of State Bank of India, either at Kolkata or Mumbai, at any point of time. The H

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A amount, as already stated, was credited by Bank of America in the Nostro account of State Bank of India maintained for Bank of America and that the Bank of America had credited the amount in the account of "Bank of India Ale Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd.", not in the credit of SBI, FD, Kolkata or Mumbai. SBI B Overseas Branch, Mumbai, of course, might have committed a mistake in crediting the amount in the appellant's account. SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai or the SBI Foreign Department, Kolkata, it may be true, had no control over the US$ 199,959. 74 which was lying in Nostro account maintained by SBI, FD, C Kolkata for Bank of America. But the question is whether the SBI Overseas Branch, Mumbai was right in debiting Euro 1.36 lakh. and realizing Rs.94 lakh from the account of the Appellant, on 29.10.2009, after a period of more than two years, eating away the valuable time of the appellant to proceed against the D importer to recover the amount .. if the Bank was at fault

28. The Bank, of course, has a right to recover the money paid under a mistake as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as under :

E "72. Liab!lity of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion.- A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or ..under coercion, must repay or return it." F .29. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar-VI-Nissa and others AIR 1967 SC 540. In that case, this Court had held that if a third party, by mistake deposits the money in account of s~me other person, as soon G as the money is deposited in the account of such third person, •, who is a customer of the bank, the money becomes the money of customer, and it is not open to the bank in such circumstances, without obtaining the consent of the customer, to reverse the entry of credit made in his account and in effect H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 91 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] pay back the money to the person who had deposited it, even though it might have beeh deposited by mistake. In this connection, we may refer to a judgment in United Overseas Bank v. Jiwani (1977) 1 All ER 733, wherein the defendant had an account in Switzerland in which there was a credit of US$ 11000. The defendant intended to purchase a hotel as an investment. The Bankers in Switzerland sent by telex US$ 11000 to London bankers at the instance of the defendant and also an advice confirming the telex. The London bank by a mistake credited two sums of US$ 11000 to the defendant. Later, when the defendant enquired about its balance, it was c shown to be about US$ 32000. The defendant purchased a hotel out of the amount with the London Bankers. Facts would reveal, but for this balance shown, he would not have been·able to purchase the hotel. The bankers rectified its error. Consequently, there was a debit balance of US$ 9000 as 0 against the defendant. Plaintiff bank demanded the money of the overdraft. It was held by the Court that the extra money credited to the defendant's account was under mistake of fact and the bank was entitled to recover it.

30. In R.E. Jones Ltd. v. Waring and Gil/ow Ltd. (1926) E AC 670, the House of Lords upheld the principle of Kelly v. Solari (1841) 9 MW 54 stating that however grossly negligent a payer may be and whatever lapses he may be guilty of, he is entitled to recover if he had paid the money under a mistake of fact, provided always that he owes no duty to the payee not to make a mistake. In Thomas Abraham and six others v. National Tyre and Rubber Co., Kottayam (1973) 3 SCC 458, this Court held that the law implied an obligation to rep.ay the money which is an unjust benefit.

31. We are of the view, even if the amount was credited by the Bank to the appellants' account by a mistake, the question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bank is justified in marking a lien on the appellants' EEFC

H

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A account, thereby realizing the amount paid. Bank, as already stated, had credited the amount in the appellants' EEEC account on 2.11.2006 and, so far as the appellants are concerned, their claim as against the importer stood satisfied, since the same forms part of a series of transactions. The B question is· whether the Bank can, after a lapse oLmore than two years, thaf is on 6.3.2009, could mark a lien_c>n the appellants' EEFC account and latEilr receive amount by making a debit entry on 29.10.2009 for an aggregate amount of Euro 1,36,027. c 32. Facts, in this case, clearly indicate, so far as importer is concerned, he had already paid the amount and the SBI, Foreign Department, Kolkata had received the amount in the Nostro account of Bank of America with remittance advice to Bank of India, instead of SBI, Overseas. Branch, Mumbai. D Appellant was also informed on 2.12.2006 of the export collection advice by the SBI for US$ 199,959.74 and the appellant received the amount. Bank might have committed a mistake, but now it would be impossible for the appellant to recover the amount from the importer since, so far as the E importer is concerned, it had paid the amount. If the SBI, Overseas Branch had not given <(redit of the amount, then, appellant could have proceeded against the importer at the earliest opportunity, but now the question is whether the appellant should suffer for the mistake committed by the Bank, F to which our answer is in the negative.

33. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, to the appellant. Bank G is directed to comply with the order within one month from today. However, we make it clear that it is open to the SBI to use their good offices to follow up the matter with the Bank of America or Bank of India or any other entity, which is in receipt of control of subject money and recover the amount, if the amount is still H

METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF 93 INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

available, for which, of course, the appellant cannot raise any A objection.

34. The Appeal is allowed as above, however, there will be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed. B