METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHERversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

                        [2014] 9 S.C.R. 64


A       METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
                                 V.
                 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2014)
                          APRIL 23, 2014
B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.)

        Bank/Banking - International Banking - Transfer of funds
  relating to export-import transaction - Reversal of account
C entry - Challenge to 1 Appe/lant-exporter used to bank with
   State Bank of India's Overseas Branch - Appellant used to
  export the goods directly and submit documents to_Siate Bank
  of India and it was for the bank to claim payment - Credit entry
  made to appellant-exporter's EEFC account in 2006 - Two
D and half years later, the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch,
  Mumbai debited amount from EEFC account of appel/ant-
   exporter on ground that it was wrongly deposited in the account
  of appellant by mistake - Justification - Held: On facts, not
  justified - In view of s. 72 of the Contract Act, the Bank does
E have a right to recover the money paid under a mistake - In
   the instant case, however, the importer had already made the
  payment and SB/, Foreign Department had received the
   amount in the Nostro account with remittance advice to Bank
   of India, instead of SB/, Overseas Branch, Mumbai -
F Appellant was also informed of the export collection advice
   by the SB/ and the appellant had received the amount - The
   Bank might have. committed a mistake, but now it would/be
   impossible tor the appellant to recover the amount from the ·
   importer since, so far as the importer is concerned, it had
   already paid the amount - If SB/, Overseas Branch had not
G given credit of the amount, then, appellant could have
   proceeded against the importer at the earliest opportunity -
   For mistake committed by the Bank, the appellant should not
   be made to suffer - Contract Act, 1872 - s. 72.

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   C
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   D
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       E
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

         HELD:1.1. An international fund transfer occurs with
8
    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
C 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
D 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
E payer and the payee. [Para 19) [85-C-D]

       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
F 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
G 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
H enables payment instructions and related messages,
  METRO EXPORTERS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF               67
                   INDIA
  including statements, foreign exchange and money              A
  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, E
  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 F
  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
H 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       A
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        B
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H 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           A
  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         B
  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,       E
 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               F
 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

     7. 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/-.

          8. 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.

         9. 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.

       10. 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     C
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,           D
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
D        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
E        your EEFC account pending rectification of our
         outstanding entry.
         Yours faithfully,
         Sd/-
         Chief Operating Officer"
F
        11. 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.]
     12. 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:

      13. 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)

    14. 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'~ \
     15. 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     E
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     F
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"
     16. 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"
        17. 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   B
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      C
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         D
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            E
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
F          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
G          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
C 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
D 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
E 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             A
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        B
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         A
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             B
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      F
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        G
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