BANK OF BARODA, SOMAIYA SADAN Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -bank has challenged the award passed by the Arbitrator (Office of Banking Ombudsman, Maharashtra and Goa) as the matter was referred by consent of the parties to settle the dispute with respondent -Bank of Baroda. The respondent -claimant had agency agreement with M/s. U.A.E. Exchange Centre, Abu Dhabi (UEC) under which UEC issued draft payable by the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid draft through clearing which were presented by the Respondent totalling amount to Rs. 1,75,000/ - all between period 29.6.1995 to 5.7.1995. Later on, it was found that the drafts were counterfeit, therefore, requested to refund the amount vide letter dated 21st July, 1995, therefore, dispute arose, which by consent of the parties decided to resolve as per the provisions of clause 21(2) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002 (BOS -2002). The arbitrator based upon the same heard both the parties and passed the impugned order in following terms:

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out various grounds about jurisdiction including the ground of limitation. Considering undisputed position on record where there is no question of any evidence required and as on face of record that the claim so raised and awarded, is beyond period of limitation. I have already observed in Sealand Shipping & Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Kin -Ship Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2011 Vol. 113 (4) Bom. L.R. 2142 which read thus:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that as there is dispute between two Nationalised Banks, let the matter be decided by adjudicatory mechanism declared by the Supreme Court for settlement of inter/intra governmental disputes by referring the matter to CoD (Committee on Disputes) and he has strongly relied on the order dated 18th June, 2009 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the said matter whereby it is observed that "unless and until the petitioner produces clearance from high power committee proceedings shall not proceeded further". This order was based upon the judgments in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, : 1995 (Supp.) (4) SCC 541; Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise : 2004 (6) SCC 437 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. City & Industrial Development Corpn., Maharashtra Ltd. : (2007) 7 SCC 39.