Dhanwato Kunwar @ Dhanwato Devi Vs The State Bank of India — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Dhanwato Kunwar @ Dhanwato Devi Vs The State Bank of India — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Demand draft of Rs. 83,724/- dated 10.04.2024 produced by the respondent Bank and handed over to the petitioner's counsel; liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue interest for the interregnum period through such other remedies as are available under law; writ petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' non-payment of Rs. 77,883/- lying in savings A/c No. 11767633859 of the deceased account holder Radha Krishna Prasad to the petitioner, his legally wedded wife, despite her claim form submitted through respondent No.3, was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified (writ of mandamus sought).

Court's answer

With the respondent Bank having paid the claimed deposit amount by demand draft during the hearing, the writ petition stands disposed of; the Court makes no adjudication on the legality or arbitrariness of the Bank's earlier non-payment.

Ratio / Principle

As regards interest for the interregnum period, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law; the Court does not itself adjudicate the interest claim.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Mohit Kumar Shah, J.), oral order dated 03-07-2024 in CWJC No.6052 of 2019: the petitioner, widow and self-described legally wedded wife of deceased SBI account holder Radha Krishna Prasad (died 21.06.2007), had sought a writ of mandamus for payment of Rs. 77,883/- lying in savings A/c No. 11767633859 with compound interest, her claim form having been submitted before the Chief Branch Manager, Ara and forwarded to the Local Head Office, Patna without payment. At the hearing, the Bank's counsel produced a demand draft of Rs. 83,724/- dated 10.04.2024, which was handed over to the petitioner's counsel. The writ petition was thereupon disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek interest for the interregnum period through such other remedies as are available under law. The Court expressed no view on the legality or arbitrariness of the Bank's earlier non-payment, and decided no point of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6052 of 2019

======================================================

Dhanwato Kunwar @ Dhanwato Devi Wife of Late Radha Krishna Prasad Resident of Village-Majhauli, P.O.-Bharasara, P.S.-Bihiya, District-Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Bank of India through General Manager Local Head office Anta Ghat, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

The Regional Manager State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan Patna. 3. The Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ara.

The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Branch-Bihiya, District-Bhojpur.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Maya Shankar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the SBI : Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate Mr. Apurva Harsh, Advocate Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

6 03-07-2024

The present writ petition has been filed

seeking the following relief:-

“1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents for make payment of Rs. 77,883/- lying in saving A/c No. 11767633859 of deceased Radha Krishna Prasad with compound interest as account holder namely Radha Krishna Prasad who died on 21.06.2007 and petitioner being legally wedded wife

Patna High Court CWJC No.6052 of 2019(6) dt.03-07-2024 2/2

submitted the claim form in prescribed performa before respondent No.3 and the same was sent to Local Head Office, Patna i.e. respondent no. 1 for necessary action but the action of respondents for not paying the said amount is highly illegal arbitrary and unjustified.”

The learned counsel for the respondent-

Bank has produced a demand draft of a sum of Rs. 83,724/- dated 10.04.2024, which has been handed over to the learned counsel for petitioner.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that as far as interest for interregnum period is concerned, the petitioner be granted liberty to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

S.Sb/-

U