Dismissing the petition the Court held that  on the facts the contentions of the petition lacked complete bona fides. Other than a bald claim that the amount had been transferred by an error there was nothing on record to show any error committed by it. No material was placed on record to show any intention or liability on its part to transfer funds to P. The bald plea that by oversight and mistake, the amount was inadvertently transferred to the account of respondent No. 4 could not be accepted. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that respondent No. 4 was an entry provider cast further doubt on the averment made by the petitioner. Given the fact that there were disputed questions of fact, liberty was granted to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the alleged claims before an appropriate forum or an appropriate civil court.