Disposed

Ahalya Samantaray v. Sundargarh District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Orissa HC4 Jul 2024WP(C)/20645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of matured fixed deposit amounts held jointly with her sister by a cooperative bank, which withheld them citing a freeze imposed after alleged misappropriation by their deceased relative. The Court directed the joint account holders to file a proper joint application, which the bank must consider in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the joint account holders to file a proper application and to the Bank to consider it in accordance with law.

Ahalya Samantaray Vs Sundargarh District Central… — Cooperative Societies | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20645 of 2016

¶2

Ahalya Samantaray …. Petitioner(s)

¶3

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. S.C. Sahoo, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Sundargarh District Central Opp. Party (s) Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sundargarh and Anr.

¶6

Mr. K.P. Nanda, Adv. Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Adv.

CORAM:

Order

No.

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER

¶12

04.07.2024

¶13

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2 . The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction from

¶15

this Court to the Opposite Parties to release the maturity amount from the RID/ Fixed Deposit accounts.

¶16

3 . Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶17

4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while the husband of the sister of the Petitioner named Nityananda Nayak was in service in M.C.L., Brajarajnagar died. The death benefits amount received by the sister of the Petitioner on 30.03.2008 was deposited with the Opposite Parties/ Bank on 28.011.2008 in the joint account of the Petitioner and her sister Silabala Nayak. He further submits that though the said amount got matured since 28.02.2015, till date the Petitioner has not received the matured amount. Such action of the

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 05-Jul-2024 17:55:43

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Opposite Parties/ Bank is violative of the Regulation of the Bank. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties/ Bank to release the entire matured amount in her favour.

¶23

5 . Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/ Bank submits that the husband of the sister of the Petitioner named Nityananda Nayak while working in Sundargarh DCC Bank Ltd. had misappropriated crores of rupees at Rourkela Branch. Therefore, a special audit was conducted in the year 2004 to 2012. As per the audit report for the year 2004 to 2012 of Sundargarh DCC Bank Ltd., the deceased Nityananda Nayak was liable for the misappropriated amount. The Executive Officer of the Sundargarh DCC Bank Ltd. had issued letter to the Branch Manager, Rourkela to freeze the term deposit of deceased Nityananda Nayak and joint fixed deposit of his wife Sailabala Nayak so also Swaraj Nayak and Swadhin Nayak.

¶24

6 . He further submits that Sailabala Nayak, wife of deceased Nityananda Nayak had made joint fixed deposits with the present Petitioner (sister of Sailabala Nayak) in the Sundargarh DCC Bank Ltd. of Rourkela Branch. The husband of Sailabala Nayak had not deposited the misappropriated amount with the Bank. Therefore, as per the restriction of the Bank, the said fixed deposit amount with interest under Annexure-4 series has not been disbursed till date.

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 05-Jul-2024 17:55:43

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

7 . He further submits that due to restriction imposed by the CEO of the Sundargarh DCC Bank Ltd., the joint fixed deposit amount has not been disbursed in favour of individual account of the Petitioner.

¶30

8 . He further contends that the Petitioner instead of approaching to the Registrar Cooperative Societies under the provisions of Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, she has approached this Court by way of filing of this Writ Petition which is not maintainable.

¶31

9 . Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and the facts that the Petitioner had approached the Opposite Parties/ Bank individually to release the maturity amount from the RID/ Fixed Deposit accounts which have been deposited with the Opposite Parties/ Bank in the joint account of her and her sister Silabala Nayak, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties/ Bank in proper manner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Parties/ Bank properly i.e. by both the joint account holders by filing an application. In such event, the Opposite Parties/ Bank shall consider the application to be filed by the Petitioner and her sister in accordance with law.

¶32

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶34

B.Jhankar

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 05-Jul-2024 17:55:43

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

Signature Not Verified

Ahalya Samantaray v. Sundargarh District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahalya Samantaray v. Sundargarh District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

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

Dhaneswar Dhir Vs Mgmt.,Nalco

Upendra Kumar Nayak Vs Principal Secy. to Govt. of Odisha, Bbsr

Ghanashyam Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Bhagaban Naik Vs State of Odisha

Dali Sahoo Vs Union of India

Smita Choudhury Vs the Branch Manager, Sbi, Kalahandi