Delhi High Court
Shri Tejinder Charan Saxena And ... vs Punjab National Bank on 28 August, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks
a writ of mandamus with direction to the respondent
bank to substitute the name of the petitioner in all
the FDRs enclosed with the petition as Annexure 3
(cooly).
The particulars of said FDRs are as under:
(i) FDR No. PQC 740116 dated 24.9.1984 for
Rs. 11000/- in the name of Smt. Prakash Wati
Saxena & mr. Randeep Verma.
(ii) FDR No. PQC 740117 dated 24.9.1984 for
Rs. 10800/- in the name of Smt. Prakash Wati
Saxena & Mr. Randeep Verma.
(iii) FDR No. PQC 740115 dated 24.9.1984 for
Rs. 11000/- in the name of Smt. Prakash Wati
Saxena & Mr. Randeep Verma.
(iv) FDR No. PTI 648373 dated 1.10.1983 for
Rs. 15000/- in the name of Smt. Prakash Wati
Saxena & Mr. Randeep Verma.
(v) FDR No. PQC 658854 dated 23.9.1982 for
Rs. 15000/- in the name of Smt. Prakash Wati
Saxena & Mr. Randeep Verma.
2. Petitioners claim substitution on the
basis that they are the only sole LRs and successors
to deceased Smt. Prakashwati Saxena, who is the first
holder of the FDR. FDRs are in the name of
Prakashwati Saxena and Randeep Verma.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that
Smt. Prakashwati Saxena was married to Shri Kamla
Charan Saxena. Learned counsel during the course of
oral submissions urged that the name of Shri Randeep
Verma has been deceitfully and fraudulently added in
the FDRs and Smt. Prakashwati Saxena was the sole
holder of the FDRs. There is no averment made in this
regard in the writ petition. Petitioner claims to
have obtained a Letter of Administration in respect of
these FDRs, of which the first holder was Counsel for the respondent, Ms. Sujata
Kashyap submits that this is a case where the FDRs
were jointly held by Smt. Prakashwati Saxena and Shri
Randeep Verma. The deceased Smt. Prakashwati Saxena
had notified the bank that no payment of the FDR
should be made during her life time to Randeep Verma.
This was the only fetter on encashment of the FDR by
the joint holder, but the same was applicable only
during deceased's life time. As per the bank records
two of the FDRs were duly encashed by Randeep Verma.
Record in respect of the balance FDRs were in the
process of being traced out.
4. From the foregoing narration of facts,
it would be seen that this case would involve
determination of disputed questions of fact as also
the rights of different parties namely LRs of the
petitioner and possibly Randeep Verma, the other joint
holder of the FDR, who has in all probability encashed
them. In any case, the claim in substance is of a
pecuniary nature and no question of public law or
public duties would really arise. Learned counsel for
the respondent states that the bank within 2 months
from today would notify the petitioner of the details
as available with them with regard to encashment of
the two FDRs as also inform the petitioner the
position with regard to the remaining 3 FDRs.
Writ petition is dismissed with these
directions. It would be open for the petitioner to
seek appropriate remedy as admissible at law in the
civil forum.
