Disposed¶39

Dinabandhu Panda v. Zonal Manager,Rbi

Orissa HC24 Sept 2024WP(C)/25610/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deposit insurance; DICGC; settlement of eligible deposit insurance claims; bank liquidation; liquidator to settle depositor claims within six months; release of amounts in S.B. account and fixed deposit accounts; mandamus; disposal in light of earlier order in Bichitrananda Lenka vrs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.15690 of 2015 (11.09.2024); Rs.15,16,59,365.17 to 6,446 claims; Rs.5 lakh insurance cover per depositor; Orissa High Court; Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; W.P.(C) No.25610 of 2013; decided 24.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the liquidator or the appointed official to look after settlement of the Petitioner's claims in a reasonable timeframe, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶39

Dinabandhu Panda Vs Zonal Manager,Rbi — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Opposite Parties should be directed to take immediate steps to release the amounts deposited in the Petitioner's S.B. account and fixed deposit accounts, with interest, i.e., settlement of the Petitioner's deposit claims.

¶22

Court's answer

A similar issue has already been decided by this Court in Bichitrananda Lenka (supra) (W.P.(C) No.15690 of 2015, disposed of on 11.09.2024); accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in the light of that order.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The liquidator or the appointed official is directed to look after the settlement of the Petitioner's claims in a reasonable timeframe, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.25610 of 2013, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi, order dated 24.09.2024) - Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to take immediate steps to release all amounts deposited in his S.B. account and fixed deposit accounts, with interest. Held: a similar issue had already been decided by this Court in Bichitrananda Lenka vrs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.15690 of 2015 (order dated 11.09.2024); with no objection from the Opposite Parties, the petition was disposed of in the light of that order. The liquidator or appointed official was directed to look after settlement of the Petitioner's claims in a reasonable timeframe, preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of the order. (The extracted portion of the earlier order records a DICGC letter advising settlement of Rs.15,16,59,365.17 towards 6,446 eligible deposit insurance claims payable out of liquid funds, and notes enhancement of deposit insurance coverage from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5 lakh per depositor effective fiscal year 2020-21; these figures form part of the quoted earlier order, not of this Court's directions.)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19 I N T HE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25610 of 2013

¶3

Dinabandhu Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner Represent e d By Adv. Mr. Srikanta K u . Nayak-1 Mr. S.K. Sahu

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Zonal Manager, Reserved Bank Opposite Parties of India and &Ors.

¶7

Represent e d By Adv. Mr. Ajodhya R a njan Dash (for O. P s.4 and 5) Mr. R .K. Samal (f or O.P.1)

¶8

CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order

24.09.2024

No.

1 .This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2 . Heard lear n ed counsel for the Parties.

¶16

3 . The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petiti o n with the

¶17

following pr a yer:-

¶18

“ The P etitioner therefore prays that this H on’ble Court be kind and gracious enough to ad m it this writ P etition, issue notices to Opp. Parti e s, after hearin g the counsels for both the parties be pl e ased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a n y other

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19 suitabl e writ directing the Opp. Parties to take immed i ate steps for release of all the a mount deposi t ed in the S.B. Account and fixed Deposit Accou n ts with interest within stipulated ti m e fixed by thi s Hon’ble Court and pass any other o rder or orders a s this Hon’ble Court deem just and p r oper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound s hall ever pray.”

¶23

4. At the ou t set, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Co u rt has earlier decided the similar issue vide the order dated 1 1.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1 5690 of 2015 ( Bichitrananda Lenka–vrs.- Union of India & Ors.). Hence, he submits t h at this Writ Petition may be disp o sed of in the light of the o r der passed in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra).

¶24

5 . Both the l e arned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and learned cou n sel for the Opposite Party Nos.4 a nd 5 submit that they ha v e no objection, if this matter is d i sposed of in the light of t he order passed in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra).

¶25

6 . On perusa l of the records and the order pass e d in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra), it appears that similar issue has already b een decided by this Court in t h e said order which was disposed of on 11.09.2024. The ord e ring portion of the said order is extracted as follows.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19

¶30

“ xx x x xx xx

¶31

12. N o w, vide the letter Ref.No.DICGC/C S D/812/ 05.02 . 427/2018-19 dated 15.06.2018, the D ICGC has a dvised that the allocated amount against depos i t’s insurance be used to settle eligible deposit insur a nce claims. The relevant portion of t h e letter is pro d uced hereinbelow:

¶32

“ 2 . In this connection, we advise having settl e d a n amount of 15,16,59,365.17 (Rupees Fifte e n c r ore sixteen lakh fifty nine thousand thr e e h u ndred sixty five and paise seventeen only) t o 6 4 46 claims towards the eligible deposit i n surance claims, as indicated in the stateme n t ' A ' enclosed and you are advised to ma k e p a yment to the eligible depositors from t h e liquid funds available with you. Further, a s i n dicated in Statement 'A', it may be not e d t h at the claims in respect of dormant a/c o n a c count of reconciliation difference will not b e p a id by the Corporation.

¶33

3 . It may be noted that aforesaid sanction e d a m ount is to be paid out of liquid fun d s a v ailable with you which should be strict l y utilized for the specific purpose of payment t o e l igible depositor. ”

¶34

13. In light of the aforementioned settleme n t, it is hereb y directed that the liquidator or official appoi n ted shall allocate the specified amount towar d s the settlement of deposit claims. T h e funds shall be distributed proportionately am o ng the eligib l e depositors in accordance wit h their respe c tive claims. Additionally, a detailed r e cord of the d i stribution must be maintained an d made available for review to ensure transpare n cy and accou n tability in the settlement process.

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

// 4 //

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19 14. Th e Opp. Parties may also consider mak i ng a de novo application to the DICGC for an e x tended settle m ent schema. In response to fi nancial insta b ility and increasing concerns about deposit safety , the DICGC has significantly rai s ed the depos i t insurance coverage from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh per d e positor, effective from the fiscal year 2020-21. This enhancement was implemented to provide great e r protection against rising inflati o n and econo m ic uncertainty, thereby boosting de p ositors’ confi d ence and safeguarding individual sa v ings by ensur i ng that, in the event of a bank failu r e, each depos i tor’s total balance across all account s in the failed bank is insured up to ₹5 lakh. 15. A ccordingly, the liquidator or the a p pointed official is directed to look after the settle m ent of depos i tors’ claims in a reasonable ti m eframe; prefer a bly within 6 months from the date o f receipt of the copy of this order. 16. T h is Writ Petition is, accordingly, dispo s ed of.”

¶39

7. In such vi e w of the matter, this Writ Petitio n is disposed of directing t he liquidator or the appointed of f icial to look after the set t lement of Petitioner’s claims in a reasonable timeframe; p referably within a period of six m onths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

// 5 //

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Sumitra Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Dinabandhu Panda v. Zonal Manager,Rbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinabandhu Panda v. Zonal Manager,Rbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Barik Vs State of Odisha

M/S Ashirbad Healthcare, Vs State of Odisha

Sunil Kumar Nahak Vs Union of India

Panshul Sharma Vs Union of India

Sasmita Kar Vs Andhra Bank

Gajendra Prasad Sahu Vs State of Odisha