Disposed

P.Ayyappan v. The Manager

Madras HC19 Nov 2024WP/2777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank account holder whose fixed deposit interest was allegedly not credited to his savings account sought a direction to the bank to respond to his representations. The High Court directed the bank to consider the e-mails dated 16.12.2020 and 12.07.2021 and pass final orders within six weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass final orders within six weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Ayyappan Vs The Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

P.Ayyappan

..... Petitioner

Vs.

The Manager, State Bank of India, Santhome Branch, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

..... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner representations submitted on various dates including e-mails sent dated 16.12.2020, 12.07.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijayakumar

¶14

For Respondents :M/s.B.Siva Kollappan

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondent to

¶20

consider the e-mails sent by him dated 16.12.2020 and 12.07.2021 and pass final orders.

¶21

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having savings bank

¶22

account as well as fixed deposit account with the respondent bank and the interest accrued on his fixed deposit account will be credited to his saving bank account after deducting tax at source. During March 2020, the petitioner found the interest amount deducted from his fixed deposit has not been credited to his savings bank account. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent through e-mails dated 16.12.2020, 12.07.2021. Those representations have not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶23

3. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the

¶24

respondent is directed to consider the representations of petitioner sent by

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

¶28

way of e-mails dated 16.12.2020, 12.07.2021 and pass final orders on its

¶29

own merits within a period of six weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner through e-mail or otherwise.

¶30

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

19.11.2024

¶32

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub

¶33

To The Manager, State Bank of India, Santhome Branch, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.2777 of 2022

¶40

19.11.2024

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

P.Ayyappan v. The Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ayyappan v. The Manager

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

B.Kumar Vs the District Collector

Coimbatore Corporation Contractors, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Rathinabai Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Sakthivel Vs The Commissioner

Ashers Restaurant and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner

Dr.R.K.Sasankh Vs State of Tamilnadu