Disposed

Smt Subhash Verma v. Allahabad Bank

DRAT17 Jan 2024MISC APPLICATION/8/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the banking branch to revalidate an expired demand draft and release the funds to the applicant, who had deposited the money with the Tribunal for appeal maintenance despite the court's appeal having been disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The issuing branch of the Indusland Bank is directed to revalidate Demand Draft No. 880276 dated 16.09.2023 for Rs. 1.00 lac and release the amount to the applicant Subhash Chandra Verma.

Smt Subhash Verma versus Allahabad Bank — DRAT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

M.A. No. 08/2023 In Regular Appeal No. 92/2016 Date: 17.01.2024

¶2

Smt. Subhash Verma Vs. Allahabad Bank Present: Shri D. N. Awasthi, counsel for the applicant,

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the application for release of amount deposited towards pre-deposit.

¶4

It appears that pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by this Tribunal, the appellant had deposited Rs. 2.75 lacs vide two demand drafts, one bearing no. 865696 dated 05.10.2017 for Rs. 1.00 lacs issued by the Indusland Bank, Kakadev Branch, Kanpur and another D.D. No. 720502 dated 22.12.2017 for Rs. 1.75 lacs was issued by the Union Bank of India, but the D.D. for Rs. 1.00 lac could not be presented in time for preparing the FDR and ultimately validity of the same had expired, therefore, the said D.D. was sent by this Tribual to the issuing Bank i.e. Indusland Bank for its revalidation vide letter dated 14.05.2018, but the same was not returned back by the issuing branch of the said Bank.

¶5

It is averred that after disposal of the present appeal, when the present application was filed by the applicant and order for release of the aforesaid amount was passed by this Tribunal, then it came to the knowledge that the D.D. for Rs. 1.00 lac had not been returned by the issuing branch, therefore, another letter no. 92/2016 dated 10.04.2023 was sent by this Tribunal to the issuing Branch for return of the said D.D. after its revalidation. Accordingly, the said Branch has issued a new Demand Draft bearing no. 880276 dated 16.09.2023 for Rs. 1.00 lac in favour of the Registrar, DRAT, Allahabad.

¶6

Since the present appeal has already been disposed off and no amount is required for maintaining this appeal, therefore, the said Demand Draft has not been presented for preparing the FDR in favour of the Registrar and the same was returned to the applicant for its encashment with endorsment that the amount mentioned in the D.D. may be paid to the applicant, but it is informed by the applicant that the issuing branch of the Bank has refused to pay the amount of the said demand draft.

¶7

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the issuing Branch of the Indusland Bank is directed to first revalidate the D.D. No. 880276 dated 16.09.2023 for Rs. 1.00 lac issued in favour of the Registrar, DRAT, Allahabad and secondly release the amount of the said Demand in favour of the applicant-Subhash Chandra Verma, who had actually deposited the same with this Tribunal for maintaining his appeal. Hence, the Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to hand-over the above demand draft to the applicant for doing the needful within a week.

¶8

Accordingly, the application for release of amount stands disposed off.

¶9

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶10

Anupam

Smt Subhash Verma v. Allahabad Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Subhash Verma v. Allahabad Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Tomar versus M/S Shanker Rice Products and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Amit Rai

Sarvagyaa Electrical versus Hdfc Bank

Arun Goenka versus Smt Suman Rai and Others

Mrs Rana Gufran versus Allahabad Bank and Ors.

M/s Bhoje Power Control System versus Punjab National Bank