IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 666 of 2002(D)
1. I.SAIDUKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :06/08/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.666 OF 2002
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, then a non-resident Indian, had an NRE
account with the Vakkom branch of State Bank of Travancore.
The controversies raised by him led to his filing of a petition
before the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, which resulted
in Ext.P1 against the Bank. The Bank’s appeal against that order
was allowed by the State Commission as per Ext.P2. That was
confirmed by the National Commission as per Ext.P3. The
Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court was also
dismissed as per Ext.P4. This writ petition is filed alleging that
the plea of the Bank that has found favour before the authorities
under the Consumer Protection Act is relatable to “Article 28 of
the Term Deposit Agreement”, which the petitioner is not aware
of. He has therefore, filed this writ petition challenging that
clause.
2. In opposition to this writ petition, the Bank has filed a
counter affidavit on 3.1.2005 with copy to the counsel for the
OP.666/02
Page numbers
petitioner, clearly stating that the issue in hand relates to
Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control Manual, which is applicable
to all NRE deposits and that the action taken by the Bank in
terms of that chapter has found favour wih the State
Commission, National Commission, as also the Apex Court.
3. If the provisions of Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control
Manual is to be challenged, I would expect the Union of India to
be a party to this writ petition, which is not. That apart, the
provisions of the Exchange Control Manual is built, as well, on
other statutory provisions, including FEMA, FERA etc, which
regulate the movement of money across the boundaries.
Therefore, I find not justification to sustain any challenge against
the provisions in Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control Manual.
In the result, the writ petition fails, The same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.
OP.666/02
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
O.P.NO.666 OF 2002
JUDGMENT
6th AUGUST, 2007.
=======================