R. Bhaskar v. The Special Officer, Chittoor Cooperative Town Bank Limited, No.59, Chittoor & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M.P. Ugle This Court made the following: T HE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7963 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 01.02.2005 issued by respondent No.1. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that by the impugned communication, the petitioner’s request for adjustment of S.B. account amount of Rs.1,00,446=69 paise towards the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- each was not accepted in view of the direction given by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to restrict payment only to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per depositor. This Court, by order dated 16.06.2005, modified interim
Operative part
21.04.2005 passed WPMP.No.10574 of 2005 in tune with the direction given by the Reserve Bank of India by directing the respondents to adjust the fixed deposit amount standing in the name of the petitioner to the loan account to the extent of Rs.5,000/-. In view of the existence of the direction given by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35, which is not assailed in this writ petition, the petitioner’s prayer for adjustment of the entire S.B. account amount towards his loan account cannot be allowed. It is made clear that as and when the restrictions are removed or relaxed, the amount of the petitioner shall be adjusted to the loan account in accordance therewith. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10574 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. Date: 02.07.2008 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.