Dismissed

Poonithura Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Post Master, Post Office, Maradu

Kerala HC27 Sept 2011WP(C)/21220/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner co-operative bank challenged non-payment of Kisan Vikas Patra maturity due to irregular deposit registration under the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules. Court held the deposit was impermissible under governing rules and dismissed the writ petition based on an Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for maturity value was dismissed; writ petition declared as having failed.

Poonithura Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 21220 of 2011(B)

¶5

--------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ----------------------

¶7

POONITHURA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. E 840,POONITHURA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARGHESE.K.Y, AGED 47, S/O. YACUB.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶10

1. THE POST MASTER, POST OFFICE, MARADU, MARADU PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 304.

¶11

2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM POSTAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶12

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

ADV. SMT.GOVINDA P.RENUKADEVI, CGC FOR R1 TO3

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WPC NO.21220/11

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234168 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234169 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234170 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P1(c): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234171 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P1(d): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234172 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P1(e): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234173 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P1(f): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234174 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P1(g): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234175 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P1(h): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234176 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P1(i): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 39BB 234177 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P1(j): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 49CC 771338 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P1(k): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 49CC 771339 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P1(l): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 49CC 771340 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P1(m): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 49CC 771341 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P1(n): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER 49CC 771342 DATED 19/2/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

WPC NO.21220/11

¶34

-2-

¶35

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 27.1.11 BY THE PTITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20200 OF 10 DT 13.8/10 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶37

EXTS. OF R1

¶38

EXT.R1(a): JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT TAKEN FROM INTERNET.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21220 OF 2011

¶43

=====================

¶44

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2011

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

Petitioner is a multi purpose primary co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. During 2003, petitioner made certain deposits in Kisan Vikas Patra, the certificates of which are Exts.P1 to P1(n) of `1,00,000/- each. Scheme provided that, on expiry of the maturity period of 7 years and 8 months, the depositor is entitled to get double the amount of deposit. On maturity of the deposit, petitioner applied for releasing the maturity value relying on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. Payment was not made and therefore the writ petition has been filed.

¶47

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent. Though the 1^st respondent admits of having accepted the deposit in question, according to the 1^st respondent, in terms of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 issued by the Government of India, the deposit of certificates and issue thereof have been specified in Rule 6 thereof. It is stated that in Rule 6, a single holder type certificate like the one issued to the petitioner herein

¶48

WPC No. 21220/11

¶49

:2 :

¶50

could have been issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor or to a trust. It is stated that in this case, though the deposit was made in the name of the then President and Secretary of the petitioner Bank, depositor is the Bank, which was impermissible in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, relying on the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.4995/2006, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.R1(a), respondents contend that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit of the maturity value payable in terms of the scheme under which the deposit has been made.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the rival submissions, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the deposit in question has been made in terms of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, which does not provide for deposit by institutions such as Co-operative Banks like the petitioner. The fact that the Bank is the depositor, though receipts have been issued in the name of the then President and the Secretary, is not a matter which is disputed by the petitioner even. In such circumstances, the deposit is irregular and if that be so, the

¶52

WPC No. 21220/11

¶53

:3 :

¶54

question is whether an irregular depositor is entitled to the benefit of the scheme. This very issue was considered by the Apex Court in Ext.R1(a) judgment referred to above where a similar claim made by a temple was turned down by the Apex Court holding that the deposit was irregular in terms of Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules. Therefore, the issue canvassed by the petitioner is fully answered by the said judgment. For that reason, the relief has to be declined. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

Poonithura Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Post Master, Post Office, Maradu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonithura Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Post Master, Post Office, Maradu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnankutty Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals

K.P,Laila Vs Union of India

Jomy Vs Welfare Fund Inspector

K.I.Ummer Khan Vs Suraj

Anna J Pynadath Vs State of Kerala

Sirly Jose Vs the State of Kerala and 2 Others