Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3195

High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. KIRUBAKARAN
Ashok Amritraj
Versus
Reserve Bank of India, through the office of Banking Ombudsman & Others
W.P.No.22258 of 2011
Decided on : 23-07-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:George Cheriyan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 & R3 - G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for R. Umasuthan, Advocate.

Ratios
a. If the bank officials acted negligently in discharge of their functions without proper care and verification which resulted in loss to the customer, writ Court could direct the bank to compensate such customer.
b. For pleading falsehood, suppressing material facts and attempting to mislead and prevent the Court from rendering justice properly, Court could impose cost upon such party.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.226-Bank-Deposit-Refund-Forgery-Writ-Maintainability-Falsehood-Cost-Petitioner had deposited huge amount with the respondent bank and after it matured, he had sought for its refund which was refused by the bank by contending that the money was already repaid to the person authorized by the petitioner-While the petitioner contended that he had not received back the money and was still in possession of the deposit receipt, respondent contended that the petitioner had given an authorization letter to a third party based upon which the deposit was refunded to him-Held, once deposit was accepted by the bank, it had to be refunded only to the right person and the bank had to exercise caution while refunding the deposit-For the negligence of the bank in repaying the deposit, the depositor should not be made to suffer-Facts revealed that the bank staffs had colluded in misappropriating the deposit amount and the FD receipt it had received was a fabricated one-When the bank had failed to perform its statutory duty and was negligent in refunding the money, writ Court could direct the bank to refund the money-Bank was directed to refund the deposit with interest to the petitioner on getting an undertaking from the petitioner for indemnity-As the bank had given a false statement before the Court, cost of Rs.50,000 was imposed upon it-Writ petition was ordered accordingly.
       (B)Constitution of India-Art.226-Bank-Deposit-Refund-Forgery-Negligence-If the bank officials acted negligently in discharge of their functions without proper care and verification which resulted in loss to the customer, writ Court could direct the bank to compensate such customer.
       If the officials acted negligently without proper care and verification, it is the second respondent bank’s INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OR DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT and for which the petitioner cannot be held liable or he cannot be prevented to have the money which is due to him. It is evident that bank is at fault and it is well settled law that nobody can take advantage out of his own fault. Therefore, the bank is required to return the entire amount due to the petitioner under the 7 FDRs along with bank interest till the payment. Para 29
       (C)Administration of justice-Falsehood-Cost-For pleading falsehood, suppressing material facts and attempting to mislead and prevent the Court from rendering justice properly, Court could impose cost upon such party.
       For pleading falsehood, suppressing material facts and attempting to mislead and prevent this Court from rendering justice properly, the second respondent bank which is expected to place the facts properly before this Court, should not be allowed to go scot free. Therefore, this court slaps an exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- as a deterrent measure. Otherwise for every mistake committed by the bank officials, the depositors would be denied of their amounts, which will not be in the interest of public as found in this case. If this happens to a celebrity like the petitioner who is a world famous Tennis Player, what will be the fate of layman depositor? Para 32

Judgment :-

1."AS YOU SOW, SO YOU REAP ". What will be reaped by a party, if a party commits "suppression of material facts, pleading falsehood", the decision in this case would give the result. The petitioner invested a sum of Rs.6,35,00,000/-in the fixed deposits with the second respondent bank for the period of one year. On maturity, the amounts were not released inspite of request and reminders. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court seeking mandamus to discharge of the petitioner's fixed deposit receipts to the tune of Rs.6,80,76,104/-.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he deposited Rs.6,35,00,000/-in second respondent bank by fixed deposit of Rs.6,35,00,000/-by issuing a cheque bearing No.650104 dated 9.8.2010, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. The deposit was made through duly authorising his Manager Mr.Anis.A.Abid. The second respondent issued six receipts each for Rs.95 lakhs and 7th receipt for Rs.65 lakhs. The maturity of the fixed deposit was on 13.8.2011. As the fixed deposits were to mature on 13.8.2011, the petitioner requested through his manager to issue pay order by discharging the F.D. receipts. However, the second respondent staff directed the petitioner to contact one Mr.D.R.Naik, the erstwhile Chief Manager, who was working as Divisional Manager in third respondent bank. Though the petitioner's manager contacted the said Mr.D.R.Naik, the respondent bank did not take any step to pay the amount, compelling the petitioner to write a letter on 25.8.2011 and again on 26.8.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner issued notice dated 31.8.2011 to pay the amount. The first respondent replied on 7.9.2011. However, no step was taken by the respondent bank. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The second and third respondents filed counter affidavit denying the contentions made in the writ petition.

4. It is contended that even though the petitioner deposited Rs.6.35 crores and the date of mature of the said deposit was on 13.8.2011, based on the specific request of the petitioner as contained in second application form, the single fixed deposit for the face value of Rs.6.35 crores was converted into 7 deposits. The petitioner through his letter dated 26.8.2010, requested the second respondent to pre-close four FDRs and to give the pay order to the bearer of the letter one Mr.Lawrence. Based on the said request, the second respondent pre-closed four fixed deposits and proceeds were paid through account payee demand draft in the name of the petitioner. Again on 12.11.2010, the writ petitioner through Mr.Lawrence sent FD receipt bearing No.090940100 3525/9 printed Sl.No.761023 for value of Rs.95 lakhs by discharging the same by signing his signature on the reverse of the FDR. The second respondent issued A/c payee demand draft to the tune of Rs.96,08,063/-.

5. The petitioner by letter dated 19.11.2010 informed the Bank that the FD receipts bearing Nos.090401003525/7 and 0909401003525/8 for the value of Rs.95 lakhs and 65 lakhs were lost and requested to issue duplicate receipts. After getting indemnity agreements from the petitioner on 19.11.2010, duplicate FDRs bearing FDR No.090401003525/7 and 0909401003525/8 were issued in the name of the petitioner on 19.11.2010. On 24.11.2010, the petitioner through Mr.Lawrence sent the aforesaid two duplicate FDR for discharge by making his signatures on the reverse of the two FDR and the same was complied with by issuing account payee demand drafts on 24.11.2010 for the value of Rs.96,24,646/- and Rs.65,85,284/-. Thus the petitioner received the proceeds of the fixed deposits, paid through his representative Mr.Lawrence. The proceeds paid through demand drafts were also encashed through SB A/c.No.26051019452 standing in the name of the petitioner with M/s.Canara Bank, K.K.Nagar Branch.

6. When the above is the factual position, the writ petitioner sent his letter dated 25.8.2011 through M.Anish A.Abid calling upon the second respondent to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3195

High Court of Judicature at Madras N. KIRUBAKARAN Ashok Amritraj Versus Reserve Bank of India, through the office of Banking Ombudsman & Others W.P.No.22258 of 2011 Decided on : 23-07-2012

Judicial Analysis

High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. KIRUBAKARAN
Ashok Amritraj
Versus
Reserve Bank of India, through the office of Banking Ombudsman & Others
W.P.No.22258 of 2011
Decided on : 23-07-2012