Banks are required to act fairly, justly, and reasonably in the interest of the public and public good. The court has the power to adjudicate disputed questions of fact, and litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings.

"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 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