The jurisdiction of civil courts is upheld even with concurrent proceedings before DRT, ensuring parties can seek appropriate remedies outside the scope of DRT adjudication.

JUDGMENT

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2023 passed in C.S.No.413 of 2017 and to decree the suit C.S.No.413 of 2017 as prayed for with costs.

2.The appellant has filed a Suit in C.S.No.413 of 2017 for the following prayers:

(a) Declaring that the pledge/lien/charge or any form of security created in favour of the 1st defendant over the plaintiff fixed deposits' more fully described in the Schedule hereunder is unenforceable in law, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and consequently direct the 1st Defendant to return the plaintiff's original fixed deposit receipts more fully described in the Schedule to the plaintiff.

(b) Direct the 1st defendant to render true and proper accounts to the plaintiff in respect of the interest accrued less taxes if any in the aforesaid fixed deposits from the initial date of deposit till final payments thereof to the plaintiff.

(c) Costs of the suit.

3.The brief facts of the appellant's case is as follows:

3.1.The appellant, responding to solicitation by the 1st respondent Bank through the deceased defendant viz., Mr.M.Rajanarayanan, who was added as the second defendant in the suit, invested a total sum of Rs.3,40,04,000/- in fixed deposits. The investment was made by way of pay order No.568099 dated 03.12.2010 and was split across three fixed deposit receipts (Fixed Deposit Receipt Nos.3804, 3817 and 3820), for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,00,000/-, and Rs.1,40,04,000/- respectively.

3.2.The 1st respondent Bank assured the appellant that interest would be paid at 0.5% higher rate than other banks on the Reserve Bank of India's prescribed rate of interest. It was further agreed that interest would be compounded quarterly by accumulation and added to the principal, thereby enhancing the deposit value.

3.3.The Fixed Deposit Receipts were taken by the deceased second defendant from the appellant in 2011 and 2012 for renewal, and the renewed receipts were returned to the appellant. In the first week of December 2013, the deceased second defendant again collected the original Fixed Deposit Receipts under the pretext of renewal, however neither the deceased second defendant nor the Bank returned them thereafter.

3.4.Without the knowledge of the appellant, a savings bank account (A/c No.0441301000011914) was fraudulently opened in her name on 08.12.2010, using forged documents and signatures. Interest accrued on the Fixed Deposits were diverted into this account in violation of the agreed terms. The 1st respondent Bank colluded with the deceased second defendant and misused the appellant’s Fixed Deposits by illegally creating loans in her name by pledging the Fixed Deposits.

3.5.The appellant’s son, Mr.N.Sathappan, had approached the Bank in October 2011 seeking a loan by pledging one of the appellant’s Fixed Deposits. However, that was not possible, as the Bank had already used the appellant’s deposits for creating unauthorised loans. Instead of that, the Bank transferred Rs.82.5 lakhs (Rs.45 lakhs on 21.10.2011 and Rs.37.5 lakhs on 22.10.2011) to Mr.N.Sathappan’s Indian Overseas Bank, current account No.010802000000951 by pledging two family trust Fixed Deposits. These transactions were unauthorized.

3.6.The monies which were siphoned off had gone into the account of a proprietary concern named 'Nithyakalyana Bhavan and Caterers', operated in the name of the deceased second defendant’s wife. The entire scheme was orchestrated by officials of the 1st respondent Bank in collusion with the deceased second defendant, by brushing aside the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures.

3.7.In 2013, wh