Madras High Court
The General Manager vs C.Thiagarajan on 21 January, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
REV.APLC(MD)NO.75 OF 2021
in
W.A(MD)No.505 Of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6844 of 2021
1.The General Manager,
Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Branch Manager,
Virudhunagar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited,
Puliampatty Branch,
Aruppukkottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District :Review Applicants/Appellants
.vs.
C.Thiagarajan : Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w
Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to review the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.
505 of 2020, dated 08.06. 2021.
For Petitioners :Mr.S.Seenivasagam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
********
[Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Review Application is directed against the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.505 of
2020, dated 08.06. 2021, wherein, the Writ Petitioner whose
Provident Fund amount was deposited in the Savings Bank Account,
was directed to be withdrawn.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The objection of the review Petitioners is that the Savings
Bank Account is in attachment and that any amount that would fall
into the said account is deemed to be attached and that the Writ
Petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the amount. However,
admittedly, the Provident Fund amount cannot be attached. It is
also stated by the learned counsel for the review Petitioners that the
Provident Fund amount of Rs.2,95,351/- was deposited to the
credit of the Savings Bank Account of the Writ Petitioner. Therefore,
the learned counsel would argue that once the Provident Fund
amount falls into the Savings Bank Account, it loses its character of
being called as ''Provident Fund''. The said argument cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accepted, when it is agreed by the learned counsel for the review
Petitioners that the Provident Fund amount is not subjected to
attachment.The order of the learned Single Judge had also granted
liberty to the Writ Petitioner to operate the account only once to
withdraw the specific sum of Provident Fund which is to the tune of
Rs.2,95,351/- and the rest of the amount, if any in the account, is
kept intact as per the order of attachment.Therefore, the Review
Petitioners cannot maintain the present Review Petition, when there
is no error apparent on the face of the records and arguing the
Review Application as that of an appeal, is not permissible.
4.Therefore, in the absence of any material error manifest on
the face of recrods, the Review Application filed by the Review
Petitioners is not maintainable and accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
21.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
REV.APLC(MD)NO.75 OF 2021
in
W.A(MD)No.505 Of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6844 of 2021
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
