Dismissed

S.Sivajanam Pillai v. Indian Overseas Bank

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021WP(C)/2881/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking information under the RTI Act and disbursement of fixed deposits, the High Court of Kerala held that the matter involved disputed factual contentions between parties regarding bank accounts, making it unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the contentions of the parties.

S.Sivajanam Pillai Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

S.SIVAJANAM PILLAI RESIDING AT "APARNA", THIRUVAMKULAM - 682 305, VIA. TRIPUNITHURA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN IRIMPANAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, EAST FORT JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 031.

¶11

2 THE SENIOR MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, EAST FORT JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.LEO GEORGE,SC,INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015 ..2..

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

According to the petitioner, the petitioner stood as a guarantor of two accounts with the 1^st respondent Bank viz., (1) M/s.Vega Aircon System and (2) Vega Tech. The petitioner contends that, according to the respondents, the petitioner has three deposit/receipt accounts with the Bank viz., 500700364, 500700340 and 560800352, which were issued by the Bank on 06.10.2007, 16.08.2007 and 04.11.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.4,55,339/- and Rs.1,10,113/- respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite repeated requests the amounts due under the said matured accounts with interest accrued thereto has not been disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, sought for information under the Right to Information Act with regard to the details of the loan accounts and how the fixed deposits as above have been dealt with by the Bank. The petitioner also caused Ext.P3 lawyer notice, asking for the details of the aforesaid

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015 ..3..

¶18

accounts. The details sought for by the petitioner were not forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition, for the following reliefs:

¶19

(a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondents to disburse the amounts covered by the three Deposits/Receipt Accounts with the 1^st respondent Bank viz., 500700364, 500700340 and 560800352 which were issued by the Bank on 6.10.2007 , 16.8.2007 and 4.11.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.4,55,339/- and Rs.1,10,113/- with accured interest thereon within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court;

¶20

b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondents to furnish the following details to the petitioner as sought for by the petitioner in Exhibit P3 notice as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court;

¶21

c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondents to refund the excess money collected from him in spite of the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015 ..4..

¶23

provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as free for furnishing the documents;

¶24

d) to award the costs of the petitioner of these proceedings;

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank contending that the petitioner is having only two fixed deposit accounts and the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is having three fixed deposit accounts, is incorrect. The details with regard to the accounts are furnished in the reply affidavit.

¶26

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, wherein, the petitioner has reiterated the stand in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has three fixed deposit accounts with the respondent Bank and the petitioner is entitled for the amounts and the proceeds thereof are not yet disbursed. The case of the respondent Bank is that no amount is due to the petitioners and an amount of Rs.34,030/- is due to the respondent Bank as on 30.11.2014.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015 ..5..

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶30

From the contentions raised in the writ petition

¶31

and the averments of the respondent Bank in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the matter raised before this Court in the writ petition cannot be considered in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factual contentions of the petitioner are disputed by the respondent Bank.

¶32

Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for the redressal of the grievances raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the contentions of the parties.

¶33

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶34

SB/03/12/2021

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2881 OF 2015 ..6..

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2881/2015

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPLICATION FORM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT ADMITTING THE THREE ACCOUNTS WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2014, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PASS BOOK IN RESPECT OF S.B.ACCOUNT NO.1307.

¶43

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF CLOSURE CERTIFICATE DATED 04/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOO THE PETITIONER.

¶44

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶45

EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE CAUSED ON BEHALF OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS DATED 31/12/2014

S.Sivajanam Pillai v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivajanam Pillai v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

M/S.Sree Narayana Trust Medical Vs Union of India

B.S.S.Educational Society Vs the Village Officer, Alathur, Palakkad District

Paul Alukka Vs the District Registrar

S.Jayachithra Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Pvt. Ltd.

Senthilkumari Vs Bajaj Alliance Genral Insurance Pvt.Ltd

Krishnakumar P.N Vs Reliance Industries Limited