Tripura High Court
Smt. Payel Roy vs The State Bank Of India And Another on 4 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 344 of 2024
Smt. Payel Roy
---Petitioners(s)
Versus
The State Bank of India and Another
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. L. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 04.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking
the following relief(s):
(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to
why a Writ of Certorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for directing
the, to transit the records appertaining to this writ petition, lying with them, for
rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for
quashing/setting aside the impugned letter dated 16.01.2024
(ii) Issue Rule calling upon the official respondents and each one of them to show cause
as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for
mandating/directing the respondents to revoke/rescind the impugned letter dated
16.01.2024 and further for mandating/directing them, to forthwith make payment of
the total maturity amount of Rs.12,22,115/- (3,65,177/- + 8,56,938/-) against the
Fixed Deposit Certificates, under Account Nos.37804255726 & 38095183672
respectively.
(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rules absolute in terms of (i) and
(ii)above;
(v) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had made 2 Fixed Deposit
Accounts, in her name, in the bank, in the year 2018. Out of the said 2 Fixed Deposit
Accounts, the date of maturity of the Accounts bearing No.37804255726, of
Rs.3,00,000/-, was 10.07.2021, and the other 38095183672, of Rs.7,00,000/-, was
29.11.2021. On 07.09.2021, when the petitioner visited the State Bank of India,
Melarmath Branch, for renewal of her fixed deposit certificates, of her Fixed Deposit
Account bearing No.37804255726, of Rs.3,00,000/-, the date of maturity being
10.07.2021, she came to learn that an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- was unauthorizedly
transferred from her account, without her consent. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner checked
her another Fixed Deposit Account, bearing No.38095183672, of Rs.7,00,000/- the date
of maturity being 29.11.2021, and she came to learn that an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- has
been fraudulently shown to have been advanced as a loan to the petitioner through a
fictitious account, and the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. Situated thus, the
petitioner submitted a Letter to the Branch Manager, Melarmath dated 07.09.2021, inter
alia noting that an unauthorized transfer of all the monies from the Fixed Deposit
Accounts of the petitioner have been made, using the phone number of the petitioner,
whereas the petitioner never shared her card number or OTP to anyone, and requested for
refund of the money. Thereafter, ventilating her grievances, the petitioner approached the
Officer-in-Charge, West Agartala Police Station on 08.09.2021, and made a General
Diary Entry. Since, the representation dated 07.09.2021 evoked no response, the
petitioner submitted a Notice to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,. Melarmath on
15.09.2021, inter alia demanding proper explanation of her previous letter dated
07.09.2021, and praying, for causing inquiry into the matter. On 16.01.2024, the Chief
Manager, State Bank of India issued a letter thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
On 19.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Manager, State
Bank of India, thereby requesting to forthwith comply with the Judgment & Order (Oral)
dated 14.12.2023. Hence, this writ petition is presented.
[4] On perusal of the record, this court finds that subsequent development has
taken place. In view of the subsequent development indicated in the counter affidavit at
Para-11 wherein the respondent Bank Manager has given certain information. At this
juncture, the counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant
writ petition with liberty to take legal step in accordance with law.
[5] Meanwhile counsel for the respondent-bank is directed to provide the
details/information with all particulars in respect of the persons namely Roshan Kumar
and Aravind Kumar to whom the money in question is said to have been transferred. On
receipt of such details/information, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail remedies under
law.
[6] It is further made further clear that if Roshan Kumar and Aravind Kumar
are not holding any account with Yes Bank or Punjab National Bank as mentioned in
Para-11 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent bank is directed to procure the particulars
of these persons from the bank where they are holding accounts within two weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
[7] With the above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. As
a sequel miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed
by DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2024.07.10
16:28:31 +05'30'
