Petitioner challenged non-inclusion of his name as remitter in a bank deposit receipt despite depositing funds via a third party. Court found no legal defect as bank allows such notation only upon specific request.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2006 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1928
WP(C).No. 22808 of 2006(M)
PETITIONER:
POOKOT VIJAYAN, M/106, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, COCHIN-682 033.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS:
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM FOR R3
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
G.P.SMT.A.G.ANEETHA FOR R1 & R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C). No. 22808 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of November, 2006
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent society. He deposited an amount of Rs.3,000/- in the account of one Sri. Ponnumani Mannadiar with the 3rd respondent and Ext.P1 receipt was issued to him. The complaint of the petitioner is that his name was not mentioned in Ext.P1 receipt. He submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent and also requested the 3rd respondent to mention his name as the remitter. Admittedly, the petitioner deposited the amount in the account of Sri.Ponnumani Mannadiar with the respondent bank. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 receipt does not mention the name of the remitter. It is seen that in Ext.P1 receipt there is no column to record the name of the remitter. Ext.P1 would show the name of the person in whose name the amount is paid. In Ext.P3 letter issued by the respondent bank it is stated that if a third party was depositing amount in the account, the name of the third party would be incorporated in the receipt if he requires and in this matter no such request was seen made before issuing Ext.P1 receipt. There is no evidence to show that Ext.P1 receipt issued by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with law. Hence,
WPC 22808/06
2
the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that no enquiry is necessary as
per Ext.P4.
K.Thankappan, Judge.
mn.
K. Thankappan,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. /2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment 1-11-2006
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the omission of the remitter's name in the deposit receipt violates any statutory provision or requires judicial intervention.
Pookot Vijayan
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Lower Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Vallanghy Vithanassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
K. Thankappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
