9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 898 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - claim on FD amount - Transfer of interest on FD to stranger - whether such deposits are permissible under the Banking Regulations? - Legal requirement that the Bank has to get a consent from a third party to the contract for the purpose of setting the amounts due under the fixed deposit account with the petitioner - order of the Ombudsman that interest is being credited to the 5th respondent and the petitioner had not objected to the same - Can a public sector Nationalised Bank, refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit, to the holder of the deposit, on the ground that a consent is required from a person from whose account the amount for opening the fixed deposit account was debited? - HELD THAT - As the relief claimed in the writ petition does not involve any detailed analysis of disputed facts. As the 1st respondent Bank is a debtor of the petitioner, with regard to amounts held in fixed deposit, the Bank cannot have a stand that they will not pay the amounts due on maturity of the fixed deposit to the deposit holder. The monetary claims if any, of the 5th respondent against the petitioner, are not matters on which the 1st respondent Bank, which is a public sector bank, can intermeddle. It is for the 5th respondent to agitate such claims in appropriate proceedings. Admittedly, the 5th respondent who claims to have advanced money to the petitioner has not initiated any legal proceedings for realisation of the same, even after all these years. So also, the 1st respondent cannot transfer any funds that accrue to the fixed deposit of the petitioner, to any stranger, so long as there are no specific instructions to that effect from the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that they have not issued any such instructions. The Bank has not produced any instructions issued either by the petitioner or any other person authorised by the petitioner to transfer the interest accrued on the fixed deposit to the 5th respondent. The Bank could not have acted on instructions of the 5th respondent, since the 5th respondent is a stranger to the contract. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court which have been extracted above and that of a Division Bench of this Court that the Bank owes a public duty to pay the amounts due on a fixed deposit which has matured, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to pay the maturity value of Ext.P3 Fixed Deposit with the applicable interest as per the Reserve Bank of India Circulars from the date of deposit, to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Ext.P3 order of the Ombudsman is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Can a public sector Nationalised Bank refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the holder of the deposit without consent from the person whose account was debited to open the fixed deposit? 2. Is there a Banker-customer relationship between the Bank and the petitioner? 3. Is the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of fact? 4. Does the Bank owe a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Can a public sector Nationalised Bank refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the holder of the deposit without consent from the person whose account was debited to open the fixed deposit? The court addressed whether the Bank could refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the petitioner on the grounds that consent was required from the 5th respondent, whose account was debited to open the fixed deposit. The Bank's stance was that there was no Banker-customer relationship with the petitioner and that the fixed deposit was opened as per the instructions of the 5th respondent. The court found this position untenable, stating that the Bank, having issued the fixed deposit receipt in the name of the petitioner, was bound to repay the amount with accrued interest to the petitioner. The Bank's requirement for consent from the 5th respondent was deemed unnecessary and legally unsound. 2. Is there a Banker-customer relationship between the Bank and the petitioner? The court confirmed that a Banker-customer relationship existed between the Bank and the petitioner. The fixed deposit receipt was in the name of the petitioner, establishing a debtor-creditor relationship between the Bank and the petitioner. The court emphasized that the contract was solely between the Bank and the petitioner, and any agreement between the petitioner and the 5th respondent did not affect this relationship. 3. Is the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of fact? The court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226, even in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of fact, provided the basic facts required to grant relief were admitted. The court cited precedents where writ petitions were entertained in similar circumstances, especially when the actions of the State or its instrumentalities were found to be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary. The court found that the necessary facts for deciding the writ petition were admitted, and thus, the petition was maintainable. 4. Does the Bank owe a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner? The court ruled that the Bank, being a public sector Nationalised Bank, owed a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner. The Bank's refusal to pay the proceeds of the fixed deposit to the petitioner without the consent of the 5th respondent was found to be unjust and unreasonable. The court emphasized that the Bank could not transfer any funds accruing to the fixed deposit to any stranger without specific instructions from the petitioner. The court directed the Bank to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit with applicable interest to the petitioner. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Bank to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit with applicable interest to the petitioner within two weeks. The court set aside the order of the Ombudsman and clarified that the direction was without prejudice to the rights of the 5th respondent to pursue any claims against the petitioner and the Bank's right to recover amounts transferred as interest to the 5th respondent. The court also affirmed that the Bank owed a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner, and the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
|
