IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15627 of 2010(C)
1. K.V.GHEEVARGHESE ,KURANGATTU HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. SARAKUTTY GHEEVARGHESE,
Vs
1. THE STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK
4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER,
For Petitioner :SMT.MARY BENJEMIN
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/02/2011
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15627 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are husband and wife. They had deposited
money with the second respondent bank. The dispute involved in this
writ petition is whether the maturity value which was promised to be
paid in respect of four fixed deposits was paid or not.
2. The pleadings disclose that the petitioners had
deposited money with the second respondent bank in fixed deposits on
6.8.1991, 22.8.1991 and 30.9.1991. The deposits were closed on
18.8.2009, 8.9.2009 and 3.10.2009 on the expiry of the 18 years.
The complaint of the petitioners is that they were not paid the
promised maturity value, but only something lesser.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit
and disputed the entitlement of the petitioners to claim the amounts
demanded in Exts.P2 and P3 letters. According to the second
respondent, the full maturity value was paid to the petitioners applying
the interest rates in force from time to time. It is contended relying
on the endorsement in Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt that the petitioners
were aware that the rate of interest is subject to variation depending
on the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to
W.P.(C) No.15627 of 2010
2
time.
4. It is evident from the materials on record that the
petitioners had business transactions with the second respondent
bank and that a dispute has arisen between the petitioners and the
second respondent bank. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the petitioners should have the dispute resolved by Arbitration as
provided under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed
for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed leaving open the contentions of both sides and reserving
liberty with the petitioners to move the Arbitrator in terms of section
69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.