Dismissed

Harvinder Kaur, v. Indian Overseas Bank

Madras HC9 Feb 2023WP/20138/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed under Article 226 by survivors of joint FCNR and NRNR deposits. The High Court dismissed the petitions because the Bank traced deposits subject to a refund scheme but withheld immediate mandate due to identity verification glitches and pending service on one respondent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Bank with proof of identity to trigger refund under the Reserve Bank of India Scheme.

Harvinder Kaur, Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶7

W.P.No.20138 of 2013

¶8

Harvinder Kaur .. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.Indian Overseas Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai – 20.

¶11

2.Jayadevi Krishnasamy

¶12

(R2 impleaded as per order dated

¶13

29.11.2016 in MP No.1/13 in WP 20138/13)

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

W.P.No.20140 of 2013

¶16

Dalvindar Kaur .. Petitioner

¶17

¶18

1.Indian Overseas Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai – 20.

¶19

2.Jayadevi Krishnasamy

¶20

(R2 impleaded as per order dated 29.11.2016 in MP No.1/13 in WP 20138/13)

¶21

.. Respondents

¶22

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶23

praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to return the deposit amount morefully described in the schedule

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

1/7

¶26

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶27

hereunder to the survivor, with interest up to date, and also to pay compensation for holding the amount endlessly without paying interest on the deposit amount to the survivor.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan

¶29

For Respondents : Mr.F.B.Benjamin George for R1 No appearance for R2

¶30

COMMON ORDER

¶31

A common order is passed in these two writ petitions since the relief sought and the factual matrix involved is more or less one and the same in both writ petitions.

¶32

In W.P.No.20138 of 2013, the petitioner is an individual

¶33

who claims that an amount of 30,000 $ has been deposited in the joint names of herself, one K.Sangarapillai and one Late Sukwindar Singh during the year 1996 under FCNR RDP 17/96.

¶34

In W.P.No.20140 of 2013, the petitioner, an individual, claims that an amount of 30050.28 £ was deposited in the joint names of herself, Late K.Sangarapillai and Late Sukwindar Singh in 1996 in FCNR FDR No.1/1994 and another sum of Rs. 55,000/- in

¶35

the name of Late K.Sangarapillai, Late Sukwindar Singh and herself 2/7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶38

in 1996 in a Non-Resident / Non-Repatriation (NRNR) RSFD (M) bearing No. 12/96.

¶39

The prayer in both the writ petitions is for a mandamus directing the respondents / the Indian Overseas Bank, Adayar Branch, to return the amount to the respective petitioners, the 'survivors' under the deposits, with interest as well as compensate them for the accounts being held thus far by the Bank.

¶40

There is a twist in the tale since an individual by name Mrs.Jayadevi purporting to be the wife of Late K.Sangarapillai had filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.12494 of 1996 seeking injunction against the Bank from disbursing the deposited amount. It is this, the Bank had held on to the amount.

¶41

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions states that the aforesaid original suit was disposed for default of Mrs.Jayadevi. Neither the date of dismissal nor a copy of the order have been produced before the Court.

¶42

Thus and to ascertain her stand, Mrs. Jayadevi Krishnasamy was impleaded as R2 by order dated 29.11.2016.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

3/7

¶45

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶46

Notice was issued and petitioners directed to effect service. The cause-list reflects batta due and hence service is not complete on R2.

¶47

In light of the fact that the writ petitions are pending for nearly a decade, this Court is not inclined to delay the disposal of the same merely on the aforesaid score. Due directions have been given in the paragraphs to follow that protect the interest of R2 as well.

¶48

Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, appearing for the Bank, has confirmed that, after some effort, the Bank has traced all three deposits. They however submit that in light of the Deposit Education and Awareness Fund Scheme, 2014 (in short 'Scheme') two FCNR deposits have been transferred to the Reserve Bank of India whereas one deposit remains with the Bank.

¶49

The scheme guidelines stipulate that an applicant whose deposits have been transferred to the Reserve Bank of India on being unclaimed for a long period of time, may approach the Bank for return of the deposits and upon the individual / entity satisfying the bank of their claim, the bank has to repay the customer along

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

4/7

¶52

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶53

with applicable interest and thereafter lodge a claim for refund of that amount from the Reserve Bank of India fund.

¶54

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to issue mandamus as sought for. The writ petitions are thus dismissed though with liberty as above. No costs.

¶55

Though the Bank has confirmed that the deposits have been identified, there is a glitch as the records of the Bank reflected the names of the petitioners as 'Harvinder Kan' and 'Dalvindar Kan'.

¶56

On instructions, Mr.F.B.Benjamin George fairly accedes to the possibility of as typographical error. However, these facts are to be verified by the Bank that has to satisfy itself that the petitioners / claimants are in fact their customers as per their records. Necessary enquiries will be made with R2 as well, prior to a decision being taken in this regard. Let the records of the Board reflects the detailed measures taken in this regard for all future reference as well.

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

5/7

¶59

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶60

Liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Bank, satisfying it as to their identity and thereafter reiterate their request as made before this Court. Let such request for refund and repatriation be disposed within four weeks from the date of the petitioners presenting themselves before the Chief Manager / Manager of the respondent Bank in accordance with law and applicable Guidelines and Regulations of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶61

09.02.2023

¶62

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶63

¶64

The Indian Overseas Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai – 20.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

6/7

¶67

W.P.Nos.20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶68

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶69

ssm

¶70

W.P.Nos. 20138 & 20140 of 2013

¶71

09.02.2023

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

7/7

Harvinder Kaur, v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvinder Kaur, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Pradeep Industries, Old.23 Vs Additional Director General of

M/s.Tarpaulins India Tarp(P) Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

M.Sivasubramanian Vs Dr.Niten Chandra

M/S.Seaport Logistics Private Vs Union of India

D.Indirani Vs The Chairman

R.Prabakaran, Vs The Deputy Superintendent