[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Manager vs Ashwin Kumar T.G on 18 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:13919
1
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 287 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.19940 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL
MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEAR MARKET ROAD, PRESS
CLUB ROAD, COCHIN-682031.
2 THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, WEST NADA,
GURUVAYOOR-680101.
BY ADV SHRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC, PUNJAB NATIONAL
BANK
RESPONDENTS/:
1 ARCHANA MENON G, AGED 38 YEARS,D/O.T.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN
NAIR, NOW RESIDING AT 2094/B, GOURI NILAYAM, 4TH
CROSS, PIPE LANE, SANTHOSH NAGAR, T.DASARHALLI P.O.,
BENGALURU-560057.
2 T.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,AGED 78 YEARS,S/O.LATE
PRABHAKARA MENON, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, ALANGAD,
KOTTAPPURAM, PIN-683511.
3 BANK OF BARODA,REP. BY MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA,
KALAMASSERY BRANCH, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY, PIN-
683104.
BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2026 ALONG WITH
W.A.No.352 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13919
2
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 352 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.1304 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 101
2 REGIONAL MANAGER
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEAR MARKET ROAD, PRESS CLUB
ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV SHRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC, PUNJAB NATIONAL
BANK
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ASHWIN KUMAR T.G
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. T. P. GOPALAKRISHNAN RESIDING AT 50/710 E, 'SREE
RAMAKRIPA' PONEVAZHI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 041
SRI.N.K MOHANLAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.1.2026 ALONG WITH
WA.287 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 18.2.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13919
3
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 filed
W.A.No.287 of 2025 and the respondents in W.P.(C)No. 1304 of
2019 filed W.A.No.352 of 2025, invoking the provisions under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the
common judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in those writ petitions. Since the point to be decided in these
writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of
reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment in their
status as they were in the writ petitions, unless otherwise stated.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019 is the son of the
2nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019. The 1st petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner
therein. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019,
on 22.12.1995 while he was a minor, his father had deposited an
amount of Rupees Three Lakhs in a fixed deposit for a period of
90 days, in the name of the petitioner in the erstwhile Nedungadi
Bank, Guruvayoor branch, which was later merged with the Punjab
National Bank. The deposit was made initially for a period of 90
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
days, which was renewed for a further period of 106 days and then
again for 170 days. The father of the petitioner was issued with
Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt dated 21.03.1996, which contains the
periodical renewal particulars on its reverse side, the endorsement
of which is separately marked as Ext.P1(a) in the writ petition.
Similarly, the father of the petitioner made another fixed deposit
in the name of the petitioner for a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs on
22.12.1995 itself, for which Exts.P2 fixed deposit receipt was
issued. The endorsement on its reverse side showing the renewal
particulars is Ext.P2(a). The fixed deposits were not renewed after
23.09.1996, since the signatures of the father of the petitioner
were obtained by the bank officials for automatic renewal. On
attaining majority, the petitioner approached the bank on
07.01.2019 with the original fixed deposit receipts for releasing
the maturity amount. However, the bank refused to release the
amount, citing the unavailability of records. Thereupon, the
petitioner submitted a representation marked as Ext.P3 in the writ
petition on 07.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the non-releasing of
the amount, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 1304 of 2019 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
commanding the respondents to release forthwith the amount
covered by Exts.P1 and P2 fixed deposit receipts with interest.
2.1. On behalf of the respondents in W.P.(C)No.1304 of
2019, a statement dated 26.06.2019 was filed in that writ petition.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that statement read thus:
"1. As per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in the order
dated 03.04.2019 the Bank was directed to take
appropriate action in accordance with law to release the
amount if the petitioner is entitled to get the same as of
right without any further delay.
2. Immediately after the interim order, Guruvayoor branch
in which the fixed deposits were made in the name of the
petitioner contacted the data centre of the bank. Erstwhile
Nedungadi bank was taken over by the Punjab National
Bank in the year 2003. At the time of take over, all the
assets and liabilities of the bank were verified and asset
liability schedule was prepared. All the fixed deposits made
by various customers of erstwhile Nedungadi bank and
pending as on the date of takeover were also listed.
3. In the instant case, the petitioner mentions that his
father had deposited the amounts in the name of the
petitioner on 22.12.1995 and the same had matured on
21.3.1996. He further says that the fixed deposits were
renewed for a period of 106 days renewable on 04.07.1996
and that the same was renewed for another 170 days
thereafter. Thus, the petitioner's fixed deposits might have
matured as early as in June 1997. There is no reason why
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
the petitioner would not have closed the fixed deposits for
a period of 22 years. In numerous cases where fixed
deposits receipts are lost or not found even after search the
banks closes fixed deposits after taking an indemnity bond
from the depositor. Probably this is what might have
happened in the case of the petitioner.
4. At any rate, fixed deposits mentioned in the writ petition
were not taken over by Punjab National Bank at the time of
takeover in the year 2003. No such account is seen carried
forward or seen in the books of account of the Punjab
National Bank at the time of takeover. Thus, the petitioner
is not entitled to make any claim with Punjab National Bank
concerning an account that was opened in erstwhile
Nedungadi Bank in the year 1995 and which was matured
in the year 1997, since Punjab National Bank took over
Nedungadi bank only in the year 2003. It is also to be stated
that the petitioner's claim is highly belated and the same is
also to be reckoned as barred by Law of limitation."
2.2. To the statement filed by the respondents, the
petitioner filed a counterstatement dated 17.07.2019. Paragraphs
1 to 3 of that counterstatement read thus:
"1. It is now manifest and evident from the averments in the
statement of the bank that liability schedule prepared by the
Punjab National Bank at the time of its takeover had not
listed the fixed deposit of petitioner as a liability which
means that it has been omitted by the bank by oversight or
for reasons known to the bank only, as long as the original
fixed deposit receipt is in the possession of petitioner.
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
2. It is also evident from averments in para 3 that fixed
deposit receipts which were either lost or not found the bank
closed the fixed deposits after taking indemnity bond from
the depositors and if the bank is able to convince the
petitioner of releasing the amount by indemnity bond let the
bank produce the indemnity bond in this Hon'ble Court and
by admitting the bank is aware and in possession of the
details of depositors who released the amount on indemnity
bond as in para 3, if the indemnity bond of petitioner is not
available it presumes that petitioner has not released the
amount.
3. As regards the question of limitation advanced for
releasing the amount it is settled law that the period of
limitation starts only from the date of demand for releasing
the fixed deposit. It is submitted as per the directive of
Reserve bank of India the respondent bank is bound to
notice the petitioner of maturity of amount and seeks to
withdraw the amount or renewal but bank has not put to
notice of same. The bank is also bound to notice the
consumer of unclaimed deposits as per RBI directive which
has also not been complied with".
3. In W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019, the petitioners plead that
the 2nd petitioner had deposited an amount of Rupees Nine Lakhs
with the Nedungadi Bank, Guruvayoor branch during 1995-1996,
in fixed deposit, in the joint names of the petitioners. He had also
deposited a further sum of Rupees Six Lakhs in the joint name of
his son, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019 and
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
himself by way of two fixed deposits of Rupees Three Lakhs each.
Similarly, the 2nd petitioner had deposited an amount of
Rs.50,000/- in his own name and Rs.50,000/- in the name of his
wife, Rema Gopalakrishnan, in fixed deposit with the 3rd
respondent, the Bank of Baroda. All the fixed deposits were
renewed from time to time, and the receipts had been retained in
the bank locker of the Bank of Baroda, Kalamasery branch,
standing in the joint name of the 2nd petitioner and his wife, Rema
Gopalakrishnan. The photostat copies of the fixed deposit receipts
mentioned above are produced by the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.19940 of 2019 as Exts.P1 to P6. The petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.19940 of 2019 would further plead that there was matrimonial
discord between the 2nd petitioner and his wife, and due to the
same, he was not allowed to operate the bank locker or the fixed
deposit accounts, but was paying only the rent of the locker. In
the month of November 2018, the disputes between the 2 nd
petitioner and his wife were settled, and it was agreed that they
would submit a joint application for opening the bank locker and
to take back fixed deposit receipts after preparing an inventory of
all articles kept in the locker. The Nedungadi bank was meanwhile
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
merged with the Punjab National Bank, and all branches of the
Nedungadi bank have been converted into branches of the Punjab
National Bank.
3.1. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 further
state that as per the agreement, Exts.P1 and P2 fixed deposit
receipts in the name of the 2nd petitioner and his son Ashwin
Kumar in Nedungadi Bank and also the fixed deposit in the name
of Rema Gopalakrishnan in Bank of Baroda were handed over to
Rema Gopalakrishnan and Ashwin Kumar respectively and
Exts.P3 to P5 fixed deposits receipts pertaining to the amount
deposited in Nedungadi Bank and Ext.P6 fixed deposit receipt
pertaining to the deposit in Bank of Baroda were taken by the
petitioners. The 2nd petitioner relinquished all his rights over
Exts.P1 and P2 in favour of Rema Gopalakrishnan and Ashwin
Kumar. Ext.P7 is the inventory of the contents of the safe deposit
locker maintained by the 2nd petitioner and his wife in Bank of
Baroda, prepared on 12.12.2018.
3.2. As per the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019,
despite repeated requests, the petitioners have not received the
amount in fixed deposits from the Punjab National Bank. They
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
have submitted Exts.P8 to P10 request letters dated 11.01.2019,
16.03.2019 and 24.04.2019 before the 2nd respondent Manager
of Punjab National Bank, but all ended in vain. Though the 3 rd
respondent initially promised that the money could be released in
respect of Ext.P6 fixed deposit receipt, the 3rd respondent also
changed his stand. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P.(C)
No.19940 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a similar relief as that of W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019,
commanding respondents 1 to 3 by issuing a writ of mandamus to
pay the petitioners the entire amount due as per Exts.P3 to P6
fixed deposit receipts together with interest.
3.3. In W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019, on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2, a statement dated 28.01.2020 was filed
opposing the reliefs sought. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that statement
read thus:
"4. It is humbly submitted that the erstwhile Nedungadi
bank was taken over by the Punjab National Bank in the
year 2003. At the time of takeover, a scheme for
amalgamation was introduced. All the assets and liabilities
of the bank were verified and asset liability schedule was
prepared. All the fixed deposits made by various customers
of erstwhile Nedungadi bank and pending as on the date of
takeover were also listed.
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
5. In the instant case the petitioners contend that the 2 nd
petitioner had made several deposits from 1995 which had
matured a long back and renewed several times. A
statement was filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.(C)
No.1304 of 2019. Subsequent to getting a copy of that
statement the present writ petition is filed by making
additional pleadings to fill up the lacuna in the earlier case.
Petitioners obviously were waiting to understand the stand
of the respondents to file the second writ petition. From the
pleadings it is discernible that the petitioners are
contending that their fixed deposit had matured long before
Nedungadi Bank was taken over by Punjab National Bank.
17 years have elapsed since the bank was taken over. There
is no reason why petitioners could not have closed the fixed
deposit for a period of 22 years. In numerous cases where
fixed deposits receipts are lost or not found even after
search the banks closes fixed deposits after taking an
indemnity bond from the depositor. Probably this is what
might have happened in the case of the petitioners.
6. At any rate, fixed deposits mentioned in the writ petition
were not taken over by Punjab National Bank at the time of
takeover in the year 2003. No such account is seen carried
forward or seen in the books of account of the Punjab
National Bank at the time of takeover. Thus, the petitioners
are not entitled to make any claim with Punjab National
Bank concerning an account that was opened in erstwhile
Nedungadi Bank in the year 1995 and which was matured
in the year 1997, since Punjab National Bank took over
Nedungadi bank only in the year 2003. It is also to be stated
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
that the petitioners' claim is highly belated and the same is
also to be reckoned as barred by Law of limitation.
3.4. On behalf of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.19940
of 2019, a statement dated 24.01.2020 was filed opposing the
pleadings in the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that reply
statement read thus:
"2. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner's Mother, Rema
Gopalakrishnan and her father Sri. Gopalakrishnan T.P (2 nd
Petitioner) were customers of the bank at its Katamassery
Bank holding safe deposit vault locker No.14 and don't have
any account with the bank. Locker rent was not paid by
them and there was an overdue of Rs.7298/- in that
account. In spite of several reminders they had failed to
remit the rent of locker i.e Rs.7298/- and the same has been
pending for the last 4 years. The branch had issued
Registered Notice on 12.11.2018 to the 1st petitioner's
Mother and 2nd petitioner Sri. Gopalakrishnan T.P in the
address available at the branch, requesting them to pay the
rental dues within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and if
payment is not made and key of the locker not returned,
branch will be constrained to break open the locker at 3 PM
on 12.12.2018. The notice also had specifically mentioned
that they should be present on that day to witness the
inventory of the contents of the locker. Further it was
mentioned that in their absence, the bank will proceed to
prepare the inventory in their absence on the specified date
and time. The notice so issued was received by the 2 nd
petitioner and his wife and the acknowledgement card
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
evidencing receipt has been received by the bank.
3. lt is submitted that as stated above, the 2 nd petitioner
and his wife were joint holders of the locker with the bank
at the branch and didn't have any account with the branch.
Since, they did not respond to the letter sent or pay the
overdue rent on the day specified, the bank had to break
open the locker on 12.12.2018 with the help of Godrej,
company which manufactured the locker, in the presence of
Sri. T.P Gopalakrishnan (2nd petitioner). The 2nd petitioner's
wife was not available at the time of breaking open of the
locker. It was informed by Sri. T.P Gopalakrishnan that
himself and his wife, had been separated for 20 years and
that they were not living together. The branch had taken
safe custody of the following items found in the locker:-
1. 5 Fixed Deposit Receipts of Nedungadi Bank in the name
of Mr. Gopalakrishnan and his son and daughter. 2. Fixed
Deposit Receipt of Bank of Baroda for an amount of
Rs.50,000/- for a period of 12 months dated 2.9.1996 in
the name of Mr. Gopalakrishnan.
3. Fixed Deposit Receipt of Bank of Baroda for an amount
of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 12 months dated 2.9.1996
in the name of Mrs. Rema Gopatakrishnan.
4. It is submitted that. Mr. Gopalakrishnan (2nd petitioner)
paid the dues of the locker and the Fixed Deposit Receipt in
his name were handed over to him. Fixed Deposit Receipt in
the name of Mrs.Rema Gopalakrishnan was handed over to
her and receipt of the Nedungadi Bank were handed over to
their son and daughter (1st petitioner). The 2nd petitioner
and also his wife had given separate requests on 29.12.2018
to trace the Fixed Deposit Receipt in their name with the
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
bank for Rs.50,000/- each dated 02.09.1996 for a period of
12 months.
5. ln furtherance of the request, the bank had checked for
the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the system as well as in the
BOBARCH link which deals with archives. The bank had also
initiated call log in help desk but in spite of the earnest
efforts, the details pertaining to the same could not be
traced out since the same is of the year 1996. The bank had
also checked the old ledgers available in the bank and also
the inventory taken by the IRON Mountain Company which
was dealing with digitalisation of the records but the same
could not be found. The issue has been escalated to the BCC
Corporate centre and every effort is being made to retrieve
the details if available.
6. It is submitted that it is only when the locker was broke
open that the petitioners came to be aware of the fact that
there was a Fixed Deposit with the bank as early as in the
year 1996, which was for a year. ln fact had the petitioners
opened a savings bank account, as per the RBI norms, after
maturity the amount would have been credited into the
savings bank account and would have carried interest at the
rate applicable to savings bank account. But in the instant
case, the 2nd petitioner had only a locker in the joint, name
of his wife and had not opened any account with the bank.
It is also to be noted that the Fixed Deposit if for an year
without any option for auto-renewal and during that time
there was no option for auto-renewal. The Reserve Bank of
India has mandated banks to publish a list of inactive or
inoperative accounts for 10 years or more on the bank's
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
website so that it is possible for the depositor or legal heir
to claim such amounts by following procedures. But the
same is not applicable in the facts of the present case since
there are no records pertaining to the deposit that is
available with the bank and without the same the bank is
not in a position to release the amounts as sought for. The
petitioners had approached the bank after a time period of
23 years and without proper records available with the bank
and verification thereto, the bank would not be in a position
to effect payment of any amounts. Also the claim is time
barred in so far as even for maintaining a claim for return
of money, the normal period of limitation available has long
expired. It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs
to this respondent".
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned
common judgment dated 20.12.2024 disposed of the writ
petitions. Paragraph 13 and the relief portion of that judgment
read thus:
"13. The fact that the fixed deposit receipts were inside the
safe deposit lockers with the Bank of Baroda is not in
dispute. Furthermore, in the statement filed on behalf of the
Bank of Baroda, dated 31.01.2022, the fact that these fixed
deposit receipts were retrieved only in the year 2018, as
evidenced by Ext. P7 inventory, is also clear. In such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
the Punjab National Bank with respect to the delay and
laches cannot be accepted. However, I notice the
submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that
there are instances where the fixed deposit receipts have
been already encashed against indemnity bonds. But on the
facts and circumstances as highlighted above, I am of the
opinion that the case put up by the petitioners is to be
accepted as more probable in nature.
In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that these writ
petitions can be disposed of with the following directions;
i. The Punjab National Bank/Bank of Baroda to
disburse the proceeds out of the afore fixed deposits
to the petitioners in these writ petitions, within eight
weeks from today, as under;
a) The proceeds of the fixed deposit receipts at
Sl.Nos.(i) and (ii) in paragraph No.4 above to be
credited to the account of the son, Sri.Ashwin
Kumar T.G., to which the 2nd petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.19940 of 2019 (father) has no
objection. This Court also records the submission
made by Sri.Dinesh on behalf of the father that he
is ready and willing to endorse the afore fixed
deposits in favour of the son.
b) As regards the other three fixed deposits as
Sl.Nos.(iii) and (v) in paragraph No.4, they would
be credited by the Punjab National Bank to the
account of the daughter;
c) As regards the fixed deposit at Sl.No.(vi), the
same is to be credited to the account of the father
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
with the Bank of Baroda.
d) As regards the fixed deposit for Rs.50,000/-, in
the name of the mother, which is retrieved from
the safe deposit locker as noticed earlier, the same
is to be credited to the account or the mother.
ii. The petitioners in these writ petitions to execute an
undertaking/indemnity bond with the Punjab National
Bank/Bank of Baroda, undertaking to repay the
payments to be credited as above, in the event, the
Punjab National Bank/Bank of Baroda, on a later date,
notices that the proceeds of the fixed deposits have
been already received by the respective parties".
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the
learned Single Judge, the appellants-respondents in the writ
petitions have filed the present writ appeals.
6. On 24.03.2025, when these writ appeals came up for
consideration, after hearing both sides, this Court directed the
appellant Bank to deposit the amount directed by the learned
Single Judge with the Registry of this Court which the petitioners,
as per the entitlement under the impugned order will be entitled
to withdraw upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the
Registry of this Court. It was clarified in that order that the
withdrawal of the amount will be subject to the outcome of these
writ appeals.
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
7. On 12.09.2025, as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
W.A.No.287 of 2025, this Court permitted the petitioners to
withdraw the amount of Rs.10,08,051.39 deposited by the Bank
pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2025. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of that
order read thus:
"6. In pursuance to the direction in paragraph 4 of the order
dated 24.03.2025 passed by this Court, the appellant Bank
produced a Demand Draft bearing No.576599 dated
17.07.2025 for an amount of Rs.10,08,051.39 drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Market Road, Ernakulam, in favour of
the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala, along with a
memo dated 22.07.2025. Now the applicants/respondents
1 and 2 want to withdraw that amount, under protest.
7. According to the applicants/respondents 1 and 2, as per
the guidelines laid by the Reserve Bank of India, it is
specified that in case of unclaimed deposits and
inoperative/dormant accounts in the Bank, the depositors
will be entitled to receive the amount with interest for the
deposits due. But the deposit now made before this Court
does not include the interest portion. It is further averred in
the affidavit filed in support of the above application that
the RBI guidelines also directed the Bank to post the details
of unclaimed deposits on their websites, with some
identifiable details, and members of the public are
encouraged to identify and approach the Bank concerned for
claiming such deposits. Therefore, even assuming that only
a lesser rate of interest than shown in Exts.P3 to P4 Fixed
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
Deposit Receipts would be payable, by calculating interest
at a nominal 6% rate, the total amount due towards the
disbursement of the Fixed Deposit Receipts would be
Rs.26,17,833.51. Therefore, the balance amount due after
the amount now in deposit will come to Rs.16,09,782.12. It
was in that circumstance, the applicants/ respondents 1 and
2 sought permission to receive the amount deposited by
the Bank, under protest, subject to their further claim for
interest.
8. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar,
leaving the legal and factual contentions raised by the
parties regarding the liability of the Bank to be decided at
the appropriate stage of this appeal, we allow the above
interlocutory application permitting the
applicants/respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the amount of
Rs.10,08,051.39 deposited by the Bank by virtue of the DD
bearing No.576599, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Market
Road, Ernakulam, under protest, reserving their right to
claim the balance amount if any, due from the appellant
Bank, by complying the direction of furnishing security to
the satisfaction of the Registry of this Court as ordered by
this Court in the order dated 24.03.2025".
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both
the writ appeals, the learned counsel for the party respondents
and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.A.No.287
of 2025, i.e., Bank of Baroda.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
that the fixed deposit receipts mentioned in the writ petitions were
not taken over by the Punjab National Bank at the time of taking
over the Nedungadi Bank in the year 2003. No such account is
seen carried forward or seen in the books of account of the Punjab
National Bank at the time of takeover of Nedungadi Bank. The
petitioners have approached the Punjab National Bank only in the
year 2019, and the said delay is not properly explained. As far as
the locker maintained in Bank of Baroda in the joint names of the
2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19940 of 2019 and his wife is
concerned, from the reply statement filed by the 3 rd respondent
and from Ext.P7 inventory prepared it can be seen that the bank
in the presence of the 2nd petitioner broke open the locker after
giving him sufficient notice since he had not paid the rent of the
locker. The fixed deposit receipts mentioned in W.P.(C)No.1304 of
2019 were included in Ext.P7 inventory. Thereafter, the said writ
petition was filed by the son of the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.19940 of 2019. In W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019, only the
photostat copies of the fixed deposit receipts are produced by the
petitioners, and there are possibilities of giving false declarations
stating the missing of original fixed deposit receipts before the
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
bank and thereby getting the amount released. Though the
petitioners plead about marital discord between the 2nd petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 and his wife, Ext.P7 inventory
produced in that writ petition shows that the joint locker was taken
on 22.01.2007. The pleadings regarding the matrimonial dispute
between the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19940 of 2019 and his
wife are very vague. The learned counsel vehemently submitted
that all these are questions of fact and matters of evidence, which
cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and hence the proper remedy of the
petitioners is a civil suit.
10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the writ
petitioners-respondents herein would submit that from Annexure
R1(a) document produced in the writ appeal it can be seen that
the Reserve Bank of India has issued guidelines as to how the
unclaimed deposits have to be dealt with by the Banks and as per
the guidelines, a list of such unclaimed deposits have to be listed
in the website of the Banks concerned. The burden is upon the
Banks to explain what happened to the amounts covered by the
fixed deposit receipts produced by the petitioners. Since the Banks
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
failed to explain the same, the parties need not be relegated to a
civil remedy.
11. It is trite that when disputed question of fact are
involved, and the decision on the issue depends on the analysis of
evidence and cannot be decided in a summary manner, a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable. On this point this Court in Santhosh Kumar Nair
v. Suresh P. Sreedharan [2022 (7) KHC 258], held thus:
"8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides, we are afraid that the order impugned cannot be
sustained. Before addressing the facts, we will first refer to
the fundamental principles to be borne in mind while
exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
As held in K. S. Rashid and son v. The Income Tax
Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 and reiterated
in Director of Settlements, A.P. and Others v. M. R. Appa
Rao and Another, 2002 (4) SCC 638, the power under Article
226 of the Constitution is discretionary, to be exercised
judicially, based on recognized judicial principles. If the
basic facts are disputed and the rights claimed by the
petitioner is not capable of being established in a summary
proceeding under Article 226, for, the same requires a
detailed examination of the evidence, as may be done in a
suit, the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the
petitioner (DLF Housing v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR
1976 SC 386; Moti Das Mahant v. Sahi S. P., AIR 1959 SC
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
942). In Sohanlal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 it was
held that the object of Art.226 is the enforcement, and not
the establishment, of a right and the merits of rival claims
of title to property has to be dealt with by a Civil Court in a
properly constituted suit. Therefore, a disputed question of
fact is not liable to be investigated in a proceeding under
Art.226, especially when an alternative remedy is available
(Union of India v. Ghaus Muhammed, AIR 1961 SC 1526);
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel
Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union, 2005 (6) SCC
725. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, AIR 1992 SC
1018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the merits of
the rival claim to property or disputed question of title is not
a matter for adjudication under Art.226 of the Constitution
of India." (underline supplied)
12. We have appreciated the rival arguments addressed at
the Bar and the pleadings and materials on record. When the
petitioners say that the fixed deposits made by them in the
erstwhile Nedungadi bank, which was later amalgamated with
Punjab National Bank and also in Bank of Baroda, were not repaid
to them, the respective banks are taking a stand that they have
no document with them which shows that such deposits were
made by the petitioners. In fact, the contention of the Punjab
National Bank is that it had not taken over the fixed deposits
mentioned in the writ petitions from Nedungadi Bank. According
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
to the Bank of Baroda, the details pertaining to the fixed deposit
could not be traced out since the same is of the year 1996. From
the rival submissions made at the Bar and from the pleadings, it is
clear that the dispute pertaining to the fixed deposits raised in
these writ petitions are question of fact which needs the adducing
of evidence to arrive at a just decision on the point. In a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a
disputed question of fact cannot be decided as done in the
impugned judgment. The remedy open to the petitioners is before
the civil Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be
set aside.
13. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the relationship between the petitioners and the
Banks concerned is a fiduciary relationship, and the suit that would
be filed by the petitioners will come under the purview of Section
10 of the Limitation Act 1963, and hence will not be barred by the
law of limitation.
14. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
appropriate to dispose of these writ appeals by setting aside the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and relegating
the parties to the Civil court.
In the result, without expressing anything on the legal and
factual contentions raised by the parties, these writ appeals are
disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment dated
20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective
writ petitions. It is made clear that the writ petitioners are at
liberty to approach the competent Civil Court seeking necessary
reliefs, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that the amount
deposited by the appellant Bank and released to the petitioners
pursuant to the interim orders dated 24.03.2025 and 12.09.2025
of this Court will be subject to the result of the decision that would
be taken by the Civil Court.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:13919
WA No.287 and 352 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 287 OF 2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
SECURITY BOND ORIGINAL SECURITY BOND DATED 18/10/2025
TITLE DEED ORIGINAL TITLE DEED DATED 20/3/2015
ORIGINAL PARTY
ORIGINAL PARTY AFFIDAVIT DATED 5/11/2025.
AFFIDAVIT
PAYMENT SCHEDULE PAYMENT SCHEDULE
RECEIPT RECEIPT
BANKPASS BOOK COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK
