Allowed

Faizal .K.J v. Bank of Baroda

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023WP(C)/10793/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition regarding a struck-off company's frozen current account. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank-prescribed indemnity, after which the Bank of Baroda must release the proceeds strictly in his capacity as a nominee.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish indemnity as prescribed by the Bank; upon compliance, Bank to release proceeds treated as nominee.

Faizal .K.J Vs Bank of Baroda — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10793 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FAIZAL .K.J., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O LATE K.M.JAMALUDDEEN,
JAMAL MANZIL, KANMANI LANE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN – 682017

¶8

BY ADV A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

BANK OF BARODA, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN – 683101

¶11

BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
NAGARAJ NARAYANAN(K/700/1994)
RAFEEK. V.K.(K/134/2003)
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN(K/189/2004.)
AATHIRA SUNNY(K/000638/2018)
BINCY JOB(K/001080/2017)
SALMAN FARIS(K/002563/2022)
RAJALAKSHMI R.(K/1446/2020)
SARITHA K.(K/001422/2021)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 10793/23

JUDGMENT

T he petitioner says that he was the Managing Director of M/s

¶17

Coin Investments and Chitty Pvt. Ltd. - which had a Current Account

¶18

with the respondent-Bank, with a balance of Rs.2 Lakhs. He says that the Company has been closed down and that he applied for release of

¶19

the afore proceeds of the account to him; but which has been refused

¶20

to be done, thus constraining him to approach this Court through this

¶21

Writ Petition.

¶22

2 . In response to the afore submissions made by

¶23

Sri.A.A.Mohammed Nazir – learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶24

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submitted that, since the name of the Company has been struck off the records of the

¶25

Registrar of Companies, his client is incapacitated from accepting the above request of the petitioner. He submitted that his client has a bonafide apprehension that if they are to make the payment to the petitioner, it is possible that there will be claims against the same in future.

¶26

3 . I have no doubt that the afore apprehension of the Bank is

¶27

WPC 10793/23

¶28

¶29

justified. However, it is also without dispute that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company, which is stated to have now

¶30

been struck off the records of the Registrar of Companies. Obviously,

¶31

therefore, the proceeds can be disbursed to the petitioner only as a nominee and not as the owner; and to such extent, the Bank would be justified in acting, provided the petitioner offers them necessary indemnity as per their requirements. To paraphrase, if such an indemnity is given and the amount is received by the petitioner, any claim against the said sum can only be raised against him and not the Bank.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the petitioner to furnish necessary indemnity before the Bank in such manner and format as they will prescribe; and if this is done, the Bank will release the proceeds in the Current Account to him strictly in his capacity as the nominee of the same, without acknowledging any personal right of his over it.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RR

¶35

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

WPC 10793/23

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10793/2023

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE MASTER
DATA DATED NIL OF M/S COIN INVESTMENTS &
CHITTY (P) LTD TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE
WWW.MCA.GOV.IN

¶41

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
28/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY
GR I, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.11.2022
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF OF DELIVERY ( A/D
CARD SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT) DT.
10/11/2022

¶42

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1AThe Circular issued by the Respondent Bank
of Baroda to all branches and offices dated
18.01.2019 clarifying the effect on
operation of bank account of Companies
struck off from the Registrar of Companies
under section 248 (5) of the Companies Act
2013

Faizal .K.J v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal .K.J v. Bank of Baroda

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

Nusrath N Vs Under Secretary

Sudheesh P Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh T.R Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar E.P Vs State of Kerala

Muthanatt Thomas Vs the Union of India

Binoj.N.a., Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.