Allowed

Kunjukrishnapillai v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jun 2018WA/493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges a judgment directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The High Court upheld the direction but specified that interest on disputed chitty amounts should be computed at the nationalised bank savings rate under the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to prefer representation to respondent company within two weeks; company to decide within four weeks using applicable bank savings rate for interest.

Kunjukrishnapillai Vs Kerala State Financial… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

WA.No. 493 of 2018 IN WPC. 14972/2013

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14972/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-10-2017

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶7

KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEVILA VEEDU, PALAKKADU, ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶12

3. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., CHATHANNOOR BRANCH, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R), K.S.F.E. LTD., KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.

¶13

5. VILLAGE OFFICER, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEKCHAND V. R1 to R4 BY SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

vpv

¶17

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. C.J. &

¶18

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶20

W.A.No.493 of 2018

¶21

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶25

The writ appeal is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.14972 of 2013 whereby the learned single Judge directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 2^nd respondent pointing out factual aspects with regard to payments and withdrawals made in the chitty that was subscribed by the petitioner.

¶26

The essential question that arose in the writ petition was with regard to the adjustments made by the respondent company with regard to the interest amounts that had to be credited to the account of the petitioner, pursuant to the statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to deposit the prized amount, which had not been claimed by the subscriber, in an account as mentioned in the 'variyola'. Although the learned single Judge had disposed the writ petition by directing the petitioner to prefer a representation before the 2^nd respondent within three weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the judgment, with a further direction to the 2^nd respondent to hear the petitioner and pass

¶27

W.A.No.493 of 2018

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

orders on the request made by the petitioner, within a further period of one month, in the appeal, the writ petitioner, who is the appellant, states that preferring a fresh representation before the 2^nd respondent would be an exercise in futility since the said respondent would mechanically reject any such representation. It is therefore that he seeks indulgence of this court in specifying the rate of interest which would apply while reckoning the interest that should be credited in his account with respect to the prized amount that was not claimed by him.

¶30

We have heard Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Salil Narayanan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondent of the State.

¶31

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the directions in the judgment impugned, the appellant did not prefer any representation before the respondent company. The apprehension of the appellant is essentially with regard to the rate of interest that would be applied while computing the interest amounts that would be credited to his account by the respondent company. Taking note of the said apprehension of the appellant, we find that the interests of justice would be served by directing the appellant to prefer a representation, as directed by the learned single Judge, before the respondent company within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of such a representation being filed within the time granted in this judgment, the

¶32

W.A.No.493 of 2018

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

respondent company shall consider the said representation and determine the amounts due from/to the petitioner, after applying the rate of interest applicable to deposits in savings accounts in nationalised banks, while computing the interest payable to the appellant in terms of Section 17 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975. The respondent company shall pass orders on the representation within an outer time limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the appellant.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge

¶39

/true copy/

¶40

P.A. To Judge

¶41

vpv

Kunjukrishnapillai v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjukrishnapillai v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

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

Union of India Vs N. Kamalakshy

Abhishek Sudarsanan Vs the Village Officer

Anjali Padmanabhan Vs Commissioner for Entrance Examination