Dismissed

Mrs.Sreedevi Sreekumar v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2017W.P.(C)/4996/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of SBI Fund Management's incorporation, investigation by CBI, and compensation for alleged loss in an equity scheme. Court held writ is not a forum for contractual damages. Petitioner permitted to withdraw with liberty to approach appropriate forum within eight weeks without limitation plea.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum within eight weeks without limitation; pending application disposed of.

Mrs.Sreedevi Sreekumar Vs State Bank of India and Anr. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~R-7.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4996/2012 & C.M. 3932/2014

¶4

MRS. SREEDEVI SREEKUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. A.P. Vinod, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. N.K. Kaul, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hansa Kaul, Advocate for R-1/SBI. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate for R-2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶9

O R D E R % 01.02.2017

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.1/SBI and respondent No.2/SBI Fund Management Private Limited praying inter alia for quashing the incorporation of the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1, for directing the CBI to investigate the respondents and to award compensation of Rs.50 lacs in her favour.

¶11

The petitioner states that in December, 2007, she had applied to the respondent No.2 for investing in „Magnum Tax Gain Scheme‟, an Equity Linked Savings Scheme. On investing a sum of Rs.25 lacs on 11.12.2007 in the said Scheme, the petitioner was allotted 3631.35 units. The said Scheme was closed on 30.4.2012 and on redemption, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 2,09,294.46 on an investment of Rs.25 lacs. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had suffered wrongful loss due to failure on the part of

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 4996/2012

¶14

the respondents in declaring dividend from time to time under the Scheme. 3. Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1/SBI questions the maintainability of the present petition and states that the dispute raised here is a purely contractual dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1/SBI has been unnecessarily dragged in the case.

¶15

Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for respondent No.2 takes the same plea and states on merits that petitioner had opted for the “growth” option in the Form submitted by her for purchase of units under the Scheme and not for “dividend” option, which is apparent from a perusal of the photocopy of the Form enclosed with the counter affidavit (Annexure R-3).

¶16

The Court is also informed that the parents of the petitioner had also raised a similar grievance in two independent petitions filed by them before the Consumer Redressal Forum, which were subsequently disposed of.

¶17

Mr. Vinod, learned counsel for the petitioner states that assuming that the petitioner had ticked the option of “growth” in the Form, she is still entitled to claim dividend, which is a more profitable option under the Scheme and he is in a position to demonstrate the same from certain calculations.

¶18

This Court is of the opinion that writ proceedings cannot be used by the petitioner as a forum for claiming damages against the respondents, particularly, when the subject matter of the dispute is based on a contract between the parties. The other relief prayed for by the petitioner for directing an enquiry against the respondent No.1/SBI, appears to be completely extraneous.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 4996/2012

¶22

permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for relief against the respondents. He submits that the only apprehension is that the respondents may take the plea of limitation to oppose the said petition.

¶23

Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with pending application. It is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum as per law for relief within eight weeks, then the respondents shall not oppose the said petition by raising a plea of limitation.

¶24

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 01, 2017 ap

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

W.P.(C) 4996/2012

Mrs.Sreedevi Sreekumar v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Sreedevi Sreekumar v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Paswan Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

M/S Panch Mohan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Dr Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

Pappu Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Palika Youth Street Vendors Welfare Soceity (Regd) Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

N.C.Mahajan & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mohinder Pal Singh Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies & Ors.

Azad Bharat Congress Vs Election Commission of India

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Ashok Pal & Ors.

Nathia Devi Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

North East Region Finservice Limited Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Akeel Ahmed Vs Gopal Saini & Ors.

Azad Bharat Congress Vs Election Commission of India

Aam Akali Dal Vs Directorate of Gurudwara Elections and Ors.

Panthak Seva Dal Vs Directorate of Gurdwara Elections & Ors.