9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with regulation 22 cannot be found fault with and no mandamus as prayed for can be issued compelling the second respondent to act in contravention of the statute. - WRIT PETITION NO. 12612 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2008 - MS. G. ROHINI, J. V. Srinivas for the Petitioner. M.P. Ugle and S. Ashok Anand Kumar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein claims to be a registered society representing the shareholders and depositors of the second respondent-bank. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 227.13 crores to the depositors of the second respondent-bank as per sections 16 and 17 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent are settled. According to the petitioner, the first respondent-Corporation is bound to pay a total sum of Rs. 227.13 crores to the depositors either directly or through the second respondent-bank. It is alleged that as against Rs. 227.13 crores, the first respondent-Corporation paid only a sum of Rs. 75.59 crores so far by the first respondent-Corporation and even before paying the balance to the depositors, the first respondent-Corporation demanded reimbursement of the said amount from the second respondent-bank contrary to the provisions of the Act 47 of 1961. Hence, this writ petition to direct the second respondent-bank not to make any repayment to the first respondent-Corporation till all the deposits of the bank receive the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores, the first respondent-Corporation already released a sum of Rs. 75.59 crores on 25-1-2007. Thereafter, the first respondent-Corporation sought repayment of the said amount of Rs. 75.59 crores and, accordingly, the second respondent-bank repaid a sum of Rs. 40.59 crores up to 23-5-2008. 8. At that stage, the present writ petition has been filed contending that it is not permissible for the second respondent-bank to start repayment of the amounts to the Corporation, till the entire deposits to the tune of Rs. 227.13 crores is paid to the depositors. 9. For proper appreciation of the above contention, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder : "16. Liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on out of the amount, if any, payable by him in respect of any deposit such sum or sums as make up the amount paid or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit; . . ." 10. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 50(3) of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 (for short, "the Regulations"). 11. Regulation 22 which provides the procedure for repayment to the Corporation under section 21(2)( a ) of the Act runs as under : "22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time-to-time by, ( a )the Liquidator as soon as the realisations and other amounts in hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent-bank is untenable. 15. As a matter of fact, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent-bank, it is explained that the bank has recovered Rs. 158.48 crores after 7-12-2004 and it has yet to recover Rs. 100.66 crores under principal plus interest as on 1-6-2006 in 2,305 accounts. It is also stated that the bank has Rs. 18.14 crores in its current account and Rs. 15.80 crores in fixed deposit and under attachment by the Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 33.94 crores is still available with the bank. Thus, the second respondent made it clear that all the depositors of the bank would receive their amounts even if Rs. 35 crores is repaid to the first respondent-Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
