Disposed

Miss Anshu Agarwal, v. The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator

Telangana HC21 Oct 2010WP/19717/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pathankot High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the liquidator's clubbing of fixed deposits under the DICGC guidelines. The court noted that the settlement was in progress and abstracted from merits, granting liberty to approach the liquidator.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make claim before 1st respondent-liquidator; no costs.

Miss Anshu Agarwal, Vs The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19717 OF 2003

¶3

Dated: 21.10.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Miss. Anshu Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator, Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Secunderabad and others

¶6

.....RESPONDENTS

¶7

The Court made the following :

¶8

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19717 OF 2003

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

The petitioner herein claims to have made several deposits with Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited. It is not in dispute that the Bank is under liquidation and the 1^st respondent herein has been appointed as the liquidator. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in clubbing all the fixed deposits made by the petitioner under Krushi Quanta ReInvestment Plan and offering to pay only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent-liquidator, it is stated that the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC Mumbai) having considered the claim of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines issued under Section 16 (1) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961, held that the petitioner was entitled to the maximum limit of Rs.1,00,000/- as all the Fixed Deposit Receipts were treated as a single unit. Thus, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner that she was entitled for the refund of all the Fixed Deposit Receipts was not correct and that clubbing of all the Fixed Deposit Receipts cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

¶12

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent that the settlement of claims of the depositors is under progress and therefore, the petitioner may approach the liquidator for redressal of her grievance. It is also submitted that in case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the settlement, it is always open to the petitioner to appeal before the Registrar as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

¶13

The fact that the settlement of claims of the depositors is under

¶14

progress has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make her claim before the 1^st respondent-liquidator. If any such claim is made, the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶15

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶16

___________ Date: 21.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd

Miss Anshu Agarwal, v. The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Anshu Agarwal, v. The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator

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

T. Dharma Singh Vs v.Mohan Rao

P. Prakash Vs The District Collector

Pathuri Satyanaraya Vs Sri Tiwari

Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya Educational Society, Vs Southern Regional Committee National Council For Teacher

Kum.Palle Naga Chaitanya Vs Commissioner.

Baley Venkayamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary