This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order refusing to allow withdrawal of a fixed deposit kept for an old appellant's survival, holding the order to be free of infirmities.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3203 OF 2001
Between:
Smt. Mude Sankiramma and others
.....APPELLANTS
AND
Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3203 OF 2001
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 17.10.2001, in I.A.No.356 of 2001 in O.A.A.No.224 of 1999, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to withdraw the amount which was kept
in fixed deposit, was dismissed with liberty to appellant No.1 to file fresh application, if she wants that amount to be kept in Post Office at her village.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Tribunal has not granted the permission to withdraw the compensation amount awarded to appellant No.1, which was kept in the fixed deposit, because the object of keeping the said amount in fixed deposit is for the survival of appellant No.1, who is old and taking complete rest. Though it is stated that appellant No.1 has to incur expenditure for going to the bank to withdraw the interest, the same was not considered by the Tribunal, but she was given liberty to file a fresh application to keep the amount in the Post Office at her village, if she so desires. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ K.C. BHANU, J
March 17, 2010 MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was incorrect in disallowing the withdrawal of a fixed deposit kept for the survival of an old appellant.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to withdraw the fixed deposit amount is liable to be interfered with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Mude Sankiramma and others
Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
