Disposed

Shankar Gupta v. The S.C.D.R. Eiquidator (U/L)

Telangana HC21 Dec 2004WP/23813/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by depositors against the liquidator and DICGM under Article 226 for non-forwarding of claims under the DICGC Act. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the liquidator to consider and dispose of representations within six weeks, declining merits examination at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of representations within six weeks from receipt of order.

Shankar Gupta Vs The S.C.D.R. Eiquidator (U/L) — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 23813 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Shankar Gupta, S/o.Sri Mohan Gupta,

¶9

Age 27 yrs, Occu:Student, R/o.1-2-368,

¶10

Flat No.505, North-East Home Apartments, Street No.6,

¶11

Domalguda, Hyderabad-29.

¶12

2. Smt.Damayanti Devi Agarwal,

¶13

W/o.Sri Kishan Kumar Agarwal,

¶14

Age 52 yrs, Occ:Housewife,

¶15

R/o. Plot No.10, Maharaja Colony,

¶16

Sikh Village, Secunderabad-3.

¶17

3. Smt. Neeta Agarwal, W/o.Sri Gopal Agarwal,

¶18

Age 25 yrs, Occ:House wife,

¶19

R/o. Plot No.10, Maharaja Colony,

¶20

Sikh Village, Secunderabad-3.

¶21

4. Sri Mohan Gupta, S/o.Ramanand Gupta,

¶22

Age 50 yrs, Occ:Business,

¶23

R/o.1-2-368, Flat No.505, North-East Home Apartments, Street No.6, Domalguda, Hyderabad-29.

¶24

5. Smt.Suman Gupta, W/o.Sri Mohan Gupta,

¶25

Age 47 yrs, Occ:Housewfie,

¶26

R/o.1-2-368, Flat No.505, North-East Home Apartments,

¶27

Street No.6, Domalguda, Hyderabad-29.

¶28

6. Satish Gupta, S/o.Sri Mohan Gupta,

¶29

Age 28 yrs, Occ:Service, R/o.1-2-368, Flat No.505, North-East Home Apartments, Street No.6, Domalguda, Hyderabad-29.

¶30

7. A.Vamshi (minor), S/o.Sri A.Vijay Kumar,

¶31

Age 13 yrs, rep. by his

¶32

natural guardian and father Sri. A.Vijay Kumar,

¶33

R/o.4-1-11/B/1, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-1.

¶34

8. A.Vijay Kumar, S/o A. Vardiah,

¶35

Age 47 yrs, Occ:professional,

¶36

R/o.4-1-11/B/1, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-1.

¶37

9. Smt.A.Jyothi, W/o.A.Vijay Kumar, Age 38 yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.4-1-11/B/1, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-1.

¶38

..... PETITIONERS

¶39

AND

¶40

1. The S.C.D.R/Liquidator (U/L)

¶41

M/s.Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,

¶42

No.5-5-65, S.A.Tade Centre, 1^st Floor,

¶43

Above Bombay Hotel, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶44

2. The Chief General Manager, Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation, Head Office, RBI Building, 2^nd Floor, Opp:Mumbai Central Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

¶45

.....RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent i.e., the official liquidator in

¶47

not forwarding the claims of the petitioners to the 2^nd respondent i.e, the Chief General Manager, Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to receive the amounts entitled as per Section 17 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961, as bad, illegal and arbitrary.

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: NONE APPEARED

¶49

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶50

ORDER:

¶51

The petitioners, who said to be the depositors with M/s. Krushi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., claim to have made several representations to the 1^st respondent, viz., the liquidator. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and they are seeking appropriate directions in this regard.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.

¶53

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners had advanced contentions touching on the merits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same at this stage. The petitioners claim to have made several representations to the 1^st respondent, in relation to the deposits made by them in the bank under liquidation. It is for the 1^st respondent to take the same into account and pass appropriate orders.

¶54

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the representations said to have been made by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

21.12.2004

¶56

Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o)

¶57

Jsu

¶58

1. The S.C.D.R/Liquidator (U/L)

¶59

M/s.Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,

¶60

No.5-5-65, S.A.Tade Centre, 1^st Floor,

¶61

Above Bombay Hotel, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.

¶62

2. The Chief General Manager, Deposit Insurance &

¶63

Credit Guarantee Corporation, Head Office, RBI Building, 2^nd Floor, Opp:Mumbai Central Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

¶64

3. Two CD copies.

Shankar Gupta v. The S.C.D.R. Eiquidator (U/L)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Gupta v. The S.C.D.R. Eiquidator (U/L)

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

Iilineni Rajeswar Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

V.Balaramulu, Vs The Station House officer

Ramavath Bali Bai Vs The District Collector

Smt.Sayeeda Begum Vs Ministry of Home Affairs

B. Veeraiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sanaga Blakrishnaiah, Vs State Election Commissioner