Partly allowed

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.707, v. P.v.Vasanthakumari

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020WA/1248/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal against a judgment directing the bank to repay a fixed deposit. The High Court rejected the bank's challenge and modified the repayment schedule, ordering monthly instalments starting from 30.10.2020 without adjudicating the authenticity of the receipt presented by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appellants to disburse Rs.7,60,857/- with interest in six equal monthly instalments starting from 30.10.2020. Recall of benefit if payment fails.

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1248 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2020 IN WP(C) 25478/2019(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3:

¶10

1 MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.707, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULIMOOD JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690101.

¶11

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.707, THAZHAKKARA BRANCH, THAZHAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA-690102.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 4:

¶14

1 P.V.VASANTHAKUMARI AGED 68 YEARS VASANTHAM, WEST FORT, KRA 79, MAVELIKKARA.

¶15

2 THE ADMINISTRATOR, MAVELIKKARA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.707, PULIMOOD JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690101.

¶16

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688002.

¶17

R1 BY SRI. K. SASIKUMAR R3 BY SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

¶23

09.03.2020 in W.P.(C.) No. 25478/2019. The respondents 2 and 3

¶24

therein are the appellants and the first respondent herein was the petitioner therein.

¶25

The writ petitioner/first respondent herein made a fixed deposit of Rs.4,75,000/-, with the appellant Bank on 23.03.2013 for a period of one year. The deposit got matured on 22.03.2014 and it was renewed periodically and the last renewal was for one year from 23.03.2016. Despite repeated demands for the refund of the fixed deposit amount along with the interest at the assured rate, it was not given. It is in the said circumstances,

¶26

that the above mentioned writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers:-

¶27

“i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to release the amounts covered under Exts.P5 and P6 along with interest to the petitioner immediately.

¶28

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 3

¶29

ii) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case, to meet the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.”

¶30

The writ petition was disposed of as per the

¶31

impugned judgment with a direction to the respondent bank to disburse the amount of Rs.7,60,857/-, together with the interest accrued from 23.03.2017 till date of payment, in ten equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 01.05.2020.

¶32

True that in paragraph 4 therein, it was further observed as

¶33

follows:-

¶34

“4. It is made clear that, the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the respondents stating that, if the F/D certificates are subsequently found to be bogus in any inquiry initiated at the instance of the respondent bank, then the petitioner will reimburse the said amount to the respondent bank.”

¶35

In terms of paragraph 4 extracted as above, the first respondent/writ petitioner had given an undertaking. Even then

¶36

the deposited amount with interest was not repaid. That made the first respondent to file a Contempt Petition and it is still pending.

¶37

It is in the meanwhile, that this appeal has been filed.

¶38

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 4

¶39

We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the

¶40

learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

In this appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 was filed by the appellants for accepting additional documents. The respondents did not raise any objection in receiving the same on file. The said application is therefore allowed. On merits, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, contended that what is produced as the fixed deposit receipt of the writ petitioner/first respondent along with I.A.No.1/2020, is nothing but a fake document. The counsel has handed over the original of the fixed deposit receipt concerned for our perusal. The learned counsel further contended that when the original fixed deposit receipt is with the first respondent/writ petitioner, it is ununderstandable as to how it could be contended by the Bank that it was pledged. It is also submitted that if somebody had defrauded the Bank, the first respondent should not be made responsible for that. In short, it is submitted that the appellants

¶42

are liable to pay back the deposited amount along with the

¶43

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 5

¶44

interest in terms of the directions in the impugned judgment.

¶45

Though the learned counsel for the appellants argued

¶46

vehemently in the light of the documents, taking note of the aforesaid position as also the fact that the first respondent/writ petitioner has already given an undertaking in terms of the directions in the impugned judgment and further that she is still in possession of the original of the fixed deposit receipt, we are of the view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Though prima facie we are satisfied that the receipt produced along with I.A. No. 1/2020 in this appeal, describing it as the copy of the receipt issued to the first respondent, cannot be said to be the copy of the receipt originally issued, in view of the nature of the impugned judgment and the manner in which we are proposing to dispose of this appeal, we do not proceed to consider any such question any further. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Bank would start repaying the amount payable in view of the impugned judgment from this month onwards, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal as follows:-

¶47

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 6

¶48

The appellants shall disburse the amount of Rs.7,60,857/-

¶49

together with the interest accrued from 23.03.2017 till the date of payment, to the petitioner in six equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 30.10.2020. We make it clear that in case of failure to comply with the direction as above, the benefit granted by this judgment will stand recalled and in such eventuality the entire amount payable in terms of the judgment would become payable in-lump.

¶50

Writ Appeal is disposed of.

SD/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

SD/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/15.10.2020

WA.No.1248 OF 2020 7

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶61

ANNEXURE- A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER DATE IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY SMT. RADHA MURALI ANNEXURE -B: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER DATA IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY ONE KOSHI JOHN ANNEXURE -C: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER DATA IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY ONE GOPAN M.P.

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.707, v. P.v.Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.707, v. P.v.Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabarimala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samathi Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Shyam S. Nair Vs Travan Core Devaswom Board

Managing Committee of the Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Socities

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Examiner of Local Fund Audit

Elstone Tea Estate Vs Employees Provident Fund Orgabization

Sri.Azeem Vs Smt.Jineesha