Disposed

Gopalakrishnan v. Vs State Bank of India SBI

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024WP(C)/1518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint account holders sought re-designation of primary account holder or deletion of the wife's name after a bank branch transfer. The Bank said its core banking system could not reorder names. The court directed the Bank's competent authority to hear the first two petitioners and decide on the request to delete the second petitioner's name within one month.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gopalakrishnan v Vs State Bank of India SBI — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1GOPALAKRISHNAN V, AGED 60 YEARS,
N. VASUDEVAN, GOPALAKRISHNA MANDIRAM, KATTAYIL,
ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691512.

¶8

2LATHA S., AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN V., GOPALAKRISHNA MANDIRAM,
KATTAYIL, ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691512.

¶9

3KRISHNASREE G.L., AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN V., GOPALAKRISHNA MANDIRAM,
KATTAYIL, ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691512.

¶10

BY ADV A.SANIL KUMAR ARJUNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
ODANAVATTOM BRANCH, ODANAVATTOM P.O.,
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691512.

¶13

BY ADV C.AJITH KUMAR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The 1st petitioner seeks that he be shown as

¶19

the Primary Account Holder in Ext.P2 maintained

¶20

by the State Bank of India (‘Bank’, for short)
and his wife the 2nd petitioner, as the Second
Account Holder. He asserts that, originally,
this was the arrangement when the account was
opened, as evident from Ext.P1; but that, when
the account transferred to another branch of the
same Bank, it happened that his wife’s name came
to be shown as the Primary Account Holder. He

¶21

says that this is causing him prejudice since he
is now unable to operate the online platforms
with respect to the account and that his wife is
unable to do so, on account of the lack of
technical competence.

¶22

2.The petitioners, therefore, pray that

¶23

the Bank be directed to act upon Exts.P3, P4 and
P5 requests, wherein, there is an alternative

¶24

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶25

plea made by his wife that her name be deleted
from the account in question.

¶26

3. Sri.C.Ajith Kumar – learned Standing

¶27

Counsel for the Bank, however, responded to the
afore submissions of Sri.Sanil Kumar Arjunan –
learned counsel for the petitioners, relying
upon a counter affidavit filed by his client,

¶28

saying that, even though his client has no
objection to any of the reliefs sought for by
the petitioners, they are unable to change the
order of the appearance of the names in the
account since the ‘Core Banking System’ does not

¶29

support it. He submitted that, if the 1st
petitioner only wants to operate the Online
Platforms, the Bank is willing to allow him to
open another account free of charge, so that
such facilities can be attached to it.

¶30

4.Sri.Sanil Kumar Arjunan – learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted

¶32

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶33

that the 1st petitioner is particular that,
either his name be shown as the Primary Account
Holder in the account in question, or that his
wife’s plea - made through Ext.P4 - to delete

¶34

her name from the said account, be allowed.

¶35

5.I notice from the pleadings on record,

¶36

that the Bank has answered the first prayer of

¶37

the 1st petitioner, namely to substitute him as
the Primary Holder of the Account, to be
untenable; while they have not answered the
second prayer, namely, to act upon Ext.P4
request of his wife.

¶38

the competent Authority of the Bank must hear

¶39

the 1st and 2nd petitioners and take a final
decision made in Ext.P4, to the effect to delete
the name of the latter from the account in

¶40

question, so that the 1st petitioner can then
continue as a Single Account Holder with access

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶42

to all the online facilities.

¶43

7.The afore shall be done by the Manager

¶44

of the respondent Bank as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and
the resultant order shall be communicated to the
petitioners within a period of one week
thereafter.

¶45

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

akv

¶50

WP(C) NO. 1518 OF 2024

¶51

-6-

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1518/2024

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE` `CHEQUE BOOK OF ACCOUNT NO. 57029813592` `ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF` `TRAVANCORE TO THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBITP2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `PASSBOOK OF THE ACCOUNT NO.` `57029813592 ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE` `STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE TO THE` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBITP3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `08/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBITP4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `04/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBITP5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `04/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBITP6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED` `17/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO` `THE 1ST PETITIONER`

Gopalakrishnan v. Vs State Bank of India SBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gopalakrishnan v. Vs State Bank of India SBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunhandi Pangottil, Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Jolly Vs K.Biju.Ias

M/S Parthas Thiruvananthapuram Represented by Managing Partner N.Lakshman Sreenivas Vs South Indian Bank, Represented by the Chief Manager

N.Sreedharan Nair Vs C.S. Prashoban

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi Vs State of Kerala

Chandini C K Vs the State of Kerala