Review petition challenging the Writ Court judgment on fixed deposit dispute. Court rejected petitioner's request for remaining interest, noting the suit regarding title is pending and review lacks merit. Dismissed.
Review petition dismissed.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939
RP.No. 669 of 2017 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33000/2015 DATED 15-11-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
L.NARAYANAN
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE N. LAKSHMANAN, NARAYANA MANDIR, KUTTANKULANGARA, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR-2
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
2. MANAGEER
THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PATTURAIKKAL BRANCH, THRISSUR 680 022
3. C.N JANAKI
AGED 87 YEARS, W/O.LATE N.LAKSHMANAN, RESIDING AT "UMA" 112/3RD STREET, HARINAGAR, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR 2
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, PIN 680 001
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. KANNAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.No.669 of 2017
in
W.P.(C).No.33000 of 2015-Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2017.
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks review of the judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.
declaration that the said fixed deposits exclusively belong to her and the said suit is pending. Prior to the institution of the suit,
2
RP.No.669/2017 in
WP.(C).No.33000/2015-Y
the third respondent approached the first respondent, the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman for a direction to the concerned bank to disburse the interest accrued on the fixed deposits to her. The said complaint has been disposed of by the first respondent as per Ext.P3 order, which was impugned in the writ petition. As per the said order, the first respondent directed the bank to disburse the interest on the amounts under the disputed fixed deposits to the third respondent. This Court took the view that in so far as the fixed deposits stand in the joint names of the petitioner and the third respondent, it was not proper on the part of the first respondent to direct the bank to disburse the interest to the third respondent. At the same time, it was held that in so far as the fixed deposits are in the joint names of the petitioner and the third respondent, and in so far as the petitioner does not dispute the one half right of the third respondent over the fixed deposits, there cannot be any impediment in disbursing one half portion of the interest to the third respondent. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of modifying Ext.P3 order, directing the bank to disburse one half portion of the
3
RP.No.669/2017 in
WP.(C).No.33000/2015-Y
interest accrued on Ext.P2 series fixed deposits from time to time to the third respondent till the disposal of the suit. It was made clear in the judgment that the disbursement of the balance interest will be subject to the outcome of the suit instituted by the third respondent.
that in so far as the fixed deposits admittedly stand at present in the joint names of the petitioner and the third respondent, this Court, going by the very same logic applied for payment of one half portion of the interest to the third respondent, ought to have directed disbursement of the remaining one half portion of the interest to the petitioner.
First of all, I do not think that the contention aforesaid of the petitioner is a contention that could be raised in a review petition. Be that as it may, as noted above, the specific case of the third respondent is that the petitioner has fraudulently incorporated his name in the fixed deposits which belong to her exclusively. The suit referred to in the judgment has been
4
RP.No.669/2017 in WP.(C).No.33000/2015-Y
instituted by the third respondent for a declaration to that effect. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not disputed the one half right of the third respondent over the fixed deposits. It is in the said circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of in the manner indicated above. The logic applied to dispose of the writ petition partly in favour of the third respondent cannot be applied to order payment of the remaining one half portion of the interest accrued on the fixed deposits to the petitioner. The review petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
PA TO JUDGE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the logic applied to direct one-half interest to the third respondent can be extended to direct the remaining half to the petitioner in the present review petition.
Narayanan
Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman Thiruvananthapuram
Manageer
Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd Patturaikkal Branch
C.N Janaki
Sub Inspector of Police Thirissur West
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
