Disposed

Durlav Raj Saikia and Anr, v. the United Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Dec 2021WP(C)/2878/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging the retention of Re-Investment Plan certificate amounts was disposed of as the principal deposits were already returned. The court directed the merged bank to consider the petitioners' claim for interest via a departmental representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; bank directed to consider interest claim via representation within two months.

Durlav Raj Saikia and Anr, Vs the United Bank of India… — Consumer Protection | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No. 1/4

¶2

GAHC010010812014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2878/2014

¶5

DURLAV RAJ SAIKIA and ANR, S/O- SRI DEBAJIT SAIKIA, SEUJPAR, LANE NO. 3, P.O. and DIST.DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

¶6

2: DURJOYRAJ SAIKIA S/O- SRI DEBAJIT SAIKIA SEUJPUR LANE NO. 3 P.O. and DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA and 2 ORS,

¶9

A NATIONALIZED BANK, HAVING ITS' HEAD OFFICE AT 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, KOLKATA- 700001, REP. BY ITS...

¶10

2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED BANK OF INDIA DIBRUGARH REGION DIBRUGARH ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED BANK OF INDIA JALANNAGAR BRANCH JALANNAGAR DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K N CHOUDHURY

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA

¶14

Page No. 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 15-12-2021

¶18

Heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted Ms. V. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

Two writ petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to disburse the amounts deposited in respect of Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates opened in their names by their father viz. Sri Debajit Saikia in the respondent Bank.

¶20

The case of the petitioners projected in this writ petition, in brief, is that the father of the petitioners had opened few Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates at the Jalannagar Branch, Dibrugarh of the erstwhile United Bank of India [UBI]. The details of the said ReInvestment Plan [RIP] Certificates have been mentioned in the 2 [two] Tables in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. As per the petitioners, a total 6 [six] nos. of Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates were opened in the name of the petitioner no. 1 the total value of which was Rs. 1,47,074/- whereas 4 [four] nos. of the Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates were opened in the name of the petitioner no. 2 the total value of which was Rs. 72,454/-. The dates of maturity of those Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates were during the period between 2003 – 2004. At the time of opening the said Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates, the petitioners were minors who were then represented by their father. Upon obtaining majority, the petitioners first approached the respondent no. 3 in the year 2013 with a request to renew the Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates or in the alternative, to do needful for closure of the Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates and disburse the maturity amounts to them as the said Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates had long been matured.

¶21

3.1. By two communications, both dated 25.11.2013, the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioners that the requests regarding renewal of the matured Re-Investment Plan [RIP] Certificates could not be acceded to as payment to the Certificates was stopped by the

¶22

Page No. 3/4

¶23

Controlling Office. When the petitioners requested the respondent no. 3, by their letters dated 03.12.2013, to disclose the reasons for non-renewal, the respondent no. 3 by his two communications, both dated 29.01.2014, informed the petitioners that the Certificates were opened in their names as minors’ accounts which were operated by their father as Guardian and since a financial inquiry was going on against their father the respondent Bank would not be able to renew the Certificates. There were exchange of communications between the parties thereafter. The same position was reiterated by the respondent no. 3 in his two subsequent communications, both dated 02.05.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by this writ petition seeking the relief, mentioned above.

¶24

During the pendency of the proceeding, the learned counsel for the parties had submitted on 16.08.2019 that the respondent Bank had deposited Rs. 1,47,199/- and Rs. 73,502/- in the names of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 respectively. Thereafter, the writ petition is pending on the issue regarding payment of interest on the said two amounts. But, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Bank authorities during the entire period of pendency of the writ petition since 2014 clarifying their stand.

¶25

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the financial enquiry that was stated to be going on against the father of the petitioners had ended in the meantime with no adverse finding against the father of the petitioners. As such, the act of retention of the amounts against the Certificates should carry interest for the period the amounts were retained by the respondent Bank authorities. He has further submitted that he has received instruction from the petitioners that the over and above the amounts of Rs. 1,47,199/- and Rs. 79,502/- an additional amount had been received by the petitioners which might be on account of interest on those two amounts. It is his submission that interest in general terms has been interpreted to be the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of an amount of money belonging to another person and as such, the petitioners are entitled to be paid interest on the Certificates amounts by the respondent Bank authorities for illegally retaining the same. He has also submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the respondent Bank authorities on the issue of interest if the petitioners are in any manner

¶26

Page No. 4/4

¶27

aggrieved by the amounts of interest, if any, that had purportedly been paid to them.

¶28

In response, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent authorities has submitted that erstwhile United Bank of India has got merged with the Punjab National Bank in the meantime. Mr. Dutta has further submitted that if any such representation is submitted by the petitioners, the same will be received and considered by the respondent Bank authorities and will thereafter, communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioners forthwith. He has further stated that in view of the aforesaid merger, such representation may be submitted before the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jalannagar Branch, Dibrugarh within a period of 2 [two] months.

¶29

In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to make a representation with regard to their claim of interest if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the amounts they had received over and above the amounts of Rs. 1,47,199/- and Rs. 79,502/-. If such representation is filed by the petitioners before the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jalannagar Branch, Dibrugarh, who has replaced the respondent no. 3 as on date, within a period of 2 [two] months from today, the said authority shall consider the same and communicate the outcome of the representation along with the detail calculation that was worked out with regard to the two maturity amounts and the interest amounts, if any, paid already and as to whether any additional amount is entitled or not. It is provided that such representation shall be considered by the respondent Punjab National Bank [erstwhile United Bank of India] authorities within a period of 2 [two] months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶30

With the observations made and direction given above, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Durlav Raj Saikia and Anr, v. the United Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durlav Raj Saikia and Anr, v. the United Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Dibru Part-I Meen Samabay Samiti Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bolindra Deori and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Mala Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Krishna Kamal Borgohain Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corpn. and 3 Ors.