Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BESSY KUZHIMANNILE MATHEWversusBANK OF BARODA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court accepted the Bank's undertaking to refund the principal amount and allowed the petitioner to pursue the interest claim separately.

Summary

The petitioner, Bessy Kuzhimannile Mathew, paid a sum as sale consideration to Bank of Baroda and later sought a refund of that amount along with interest. The Bank, through its counsel, undertook to refund the principal amount within four weeks, which the court accepted as a binding undertaking. The petitioner agreed to accept the principal refund but requested leave to pursue a claim for interest and ancillary charges. The court directed the petitioner to return the sale certificate issued by the Bank and permitted him to initiate separate proceedings for the interest component, noting that any limitation issues could be considered in light of the pending petition. As the principal amount issue was resolved and nothing further remained for adjudication, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the principal amount paid as sale consideration can be refunded by the Bank.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on the refunded principal.

Subjects

  • refund
  • sale consideration
  • interest claim
  • writ petition
  • banking
  • limitation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4032-DB

                                                                     930-WP-15430-25.odt
                                             {1}

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           930 WRIT PETITION NO. 15430 OF 2025

                                   Bessy Kuzhimannile Mathew
                                             VERSUS
                         Bank Of Baroda Through Its Authorized Officer
                                               ......
            Mr. Rajat J. Malu, Advocate for Petitioner
            Mr. Satyajeet Vakil, Advocate for Respondent
                                               ......

                                          CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                                  HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                          DATE     : 28 JANUARY, 2026

            PER COURT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

            1.     After hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, it was

            appropriate to inquire with the advocate for the respondent appearing

            for the Bank as to whether the amount which has been paid towards the

            sale consideration can be refunded in principal. Learned advocate

            appearing for the Bank, upon taking instructions, makes a statement

            that the principal amount that has been paid towards sale consideration

            will be refunded by the Bank within a period of four weeks from today.

            The said statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.


            2.     Learned advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions, makes a

            statement that at present the petitioner will accept the amount so

            deposited as sale consideration in principal. The petitioner’s advocate

            seeks leave of this Court to agitate his claim regarding the interest

            component on the principal amount.
                                                            930-WP-15430-25.odt
                                    {2}


3.          As the petitioner has agreed to accept the principal amount

deposited by him with the respondent Bank, the petitioner is directed to

return the sale certificate issued by the Bank in his favour.


4.         The petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for

the recovery of the interest component along with ancillary charges

from the respondent Bank. In case any question of limitation arises, the

pendency of the present petition may be taken into consideration while

deciding the same.


5.         In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the

present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.




[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]                      [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
             JUDGE                                      JUDGE



S P Rane


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.