Page 1 of 3

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

WP(C) No.143 of 2021

Shri Niharendu Majumder.

.....Petitioner

V-E-R-S-U-S

Agartala Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and Another

.....Respondetns

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. B. Debnath, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_

21/12/2022

Heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. T. Halam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.

Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The present petition has been filed under Article-226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing the decision of the respondent bank vide

communication No.64(3)ACUB/JNGR/12 dated 04.07.2020 and the decision

communicated vide No.64(3)ACUB/JNGR/1967 dated 01.09.2020. Further, to

ask the respondents to allow encashment of the cash certificates standing in the

joint names of the petitioner and his deceased sister as the category of either or

survivor scheme.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased cash

certificates from the respondent bank 13 in numbers valued at Rs.30,97,624/-

on 03.11.2018 for two years along with his sister namely, Swapna Majumder

Roy Barman which will be payable on maturity Rs.35,12,660/-. The said

purchases were made under operative instruction either or survivor. His sister

Swapna Majumder had been living with the petitioner9s family for long. There

is no legal heir of her since her husband died on 06.06.2020 leaving no issue.

Since then, Smt. Swapna Majumder Roy Barman resided with the petitioner.

Page 2 of 3

On her death, the petitioner informed the bank for closure of the

cash certificates and to credit the value of the cash certificates into his savings

bank account. But the bank authority for unavoidable reasons issued advisory

not conforming to the initial application of the petitioner for purchase of cash

certificates. Documents are lying with the bank. They are finding excuses to

deprive the petitioner from receiving his lawful dues. Thereby, valuable right of

the petitioner accrued upon death of his sister has been faulted with. Therefore,

the petitioner has no other alternative but to approach this Court for redress.

Bank is bounded by the regulation to their won regulation under operative

instruction of the 8either or survivors9.

The petitioner being aggrieved has filed this writ petition

directing them to follow the operative instruction made by the petitioner at the

time of making application for opening of cash certificates.

In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that it is

highly objectionable and unreasonable on the part of the respondent bank that

the manner in which the amounts of the citizens have been received

irresponsibly without taking any careful measures.

It is seen from the records that the respondent bank has collected

the cash receipt from the petitioner and his sister and issued cash certificates

towards the amount deposited and the bank has carelessly treated the said

transaction without even indicating whether this is a joint and severally or

under any other heads. It seems that the bank is more interested in taking the

money but with regard to assisting its customers they have failed to provide

proper services and thus, the petitioner has approached before this Court

declining of the respondent bank with regard to releasing the amounts

deposited in favour of the petitioner who is one of the depositors.

Number of times this matter has been heard and at the request of

the respondent-bank the same has been adjourned. The General Manager Mr.

Subhash Ranjan Banik was present on the earlier occasions and today again he

is present before the Court with instructions and after taking steps that he has

consulted with their law department comprisin