Allowed

D. Siva Prasad v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Telangana HC7 Aug 2012WP/17072/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration against non-payment of matured fixed deposit amounts. It held that maturity FDRs are not case property and ordered respondents to release the due amount upon production of original receipts.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to pay Rs.1,04,063/- each under FDRs Nos.070010400035574 and 070010400035583 on production of original receipts.

D. Siva Prasad Vs The Deputy… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17072 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not releasing the amount due under the Fixed Deposit Receipts Nos.070010400035574 for an amount of Rs.1,04,063/and 070010400035583 for an amount of Rs.1,04,063/- which were matured on 9.1.2003 to the petitioners as per the instructions of the 1^st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

2. Heard.

¶5

3. Case of the petitioners is that the C.I.D Police, Kothapet (Law & Order) registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2002 and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet before the Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 at Guntur which was taken on file as C.C.No.1/FD/2006 and by a judgment dated 9.10.2009, the Special Court acquitted Directors including 2^nd petitioner for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 477A read with 120-B IPC but convicted the Directors for the offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC against which an appeal is defined, but the respondents 2 and 3 are not paying the amount due under the said FDRs. Hence the present writ petition.

¶6

4. Since the Fixed Deposit Receipts are neither the subject matter of the criminal case nor the case property, there is no point in not releasing the amount due under the said FDRs to the petitioners which are already matured. Hence, it is for the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the amount due under said FDRs to the petitioners on producing the original receipts.

¶7

5 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the amount due under the Fixed Deposit Receipt Nos.070010400035574 for an amount of Rs.1,04,063/- and

¶8

070010400035583 for an amount of Rs.1,04,063/- on petitioners producing the original receipts. No order as to costs.

¶9

K.C.BHANU,J.

¶10

07.08.2012, Gk

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.17072 of 2010

¶13

Date:07.08.2012

¶14

Gk.

D. Siva Prasad v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Siva Prasad v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Smt. K.H. Florence Lidy, Vs The Station House Officer

K.V.S. Rama Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pittala Narayana Goud Vs The Assistant Director

Talakokkula Shankar Ramchandram, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Sri. Sunil Kumar, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Y.Kishore Babu Vs Sri A.P. Choudhary