Sindi Sridhar v. Reserve Bank of lndia

4. Sindi Srinivas, S/o Late Sindi Rajaiah, Aged 50 years Occ Business Ri./o H.No. near Bus Stand, Husnabad town and mandal District Siddipet-TS. R4 is impleaded as per C.O. d1.11.11.2025 in lA. No.2l2O25 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not releasing the petitioner 4 FD Bonds 069937, 105594' 105595' and 085289 in the above said tabular form is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and blatant violation and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and violation of Reserve Bank Of lndia Guidelines and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to withdraw his 4 Fixed Deposit amounts with interest to till date ,/ / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co J t may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondents to allow the petitioner 4 FD Bo ds 069937, 105594, 105595, and 085289 as mentioned in the para No. 2 c,l the affidavit of writ petition forthwith, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K. RATHANGA PAl.l REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B. RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: S.A.RAZAK The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp 23412_2025 NBX,I IN THE HIG H COURT FOR THE STATE O F TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHE EMAPAKA WRIT PETITTON No. 23412 of2025 02nd December. 2025 BETWEEN: Sindi Sridhar S/o late Rajaiah AND ... Petitioner I . Reserve Bank of India, represented by its CGM and Secretary (Southem Area)' and Others . . . Respondents ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely as stated in the writ affidavit, is that heinvestedamountsinfourFixedDepositsforaperiodofl3monthsatan interest rate of gyo per annum in the 3rd respondent-cayathri cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Husnabad Branch, vide FD No'069937 dated 23'02'2017' FDNo.105594dated28.10.20l9,FDNo'105595dated28'10'2019'andFD No.085289 dated t6.07.2018, and that the total amount under the four Fixed Deposits is Rs.9,70,000/-. It is his further case that he lost the original Fixed Deposit Receipts, and that he approached the 3rd respondent-Bank with Xerox copies of the FDRs, and that he had also lodged a police cornplaint regarding the loss ofthe original FDRS. It is his grievance that, though he lodged apolice \ \ 2 wp 23412_2025 NBK, J complaint and produced Xerox copies of the FDRs, the 3r i respondentBank has not paid him the amounts under the FDRs.

2. A counter alfldavit has been filed by respondent N, 4 - Sindi Srinivas, S/o late Rajaiah, srating thar he is the brotherofthe peririrner, and that rhey also have a sister named sindi Swarupa (i.e., a total of thr :e children to their father, late Rajaiah). It is stated that their father died inre -. t rre, leaving behind a three-storeyed RCC building situated on 1800 sq. ft. r,r land at Husnabad village and Mandal, Siddipet District, and that the petiri,r rer instigated their sister to file a partition suit in o.S. No.20 of 2022 on rhc I le of the principal Junior civil Judge, Husnabad, in respect of the said buildinl . tt is further stated that the 4th respondent reached an amicable agreement witl the petitioner, and that the terms of the agreement were reduced to writirli in rhe l.orm of an agreemenr on a Rs.l00/- non-judicial stamp paper darec 16.09.2022, in the presence of witnesses, and that, as on the date of the alir :ement, the house property was in the exclusive possession of the 4th responc lnt.

2.1 It is further stated that, as per the terms of tlrr: rgreement, th€ 4th respondent agreed to relinquish his share in the building pr( serry lor monetary consideration, and also agreed to hand over possessior of the house by 26.09-2022, and that the petitioner agreed to keep the f rur original Fixed Deposit Bonds with the 4th respondent till registration ol- l e house by rhe 4th respondent in favour ofthe petitioner. The said lour FD []o rds irre stated to be in the custody of the 4th respondent, and the petitioner s1x cifically agreed to pay the amount to the 4th respondent as per the agreement I 1, withdrawing the FD amounts.

2.2 It is lurther stated that the petitioner supprc:,::d rhese facts and filed a po{ice complaint as if the Fixed Deposit Bonds wcr e risplaced, and that the 4th tespondent submitted a representation dated n.(5.2()24 berbre the '"- / w 3 dp _23412-2025 NBK, ] Police, Husnabad, narrating actual facts and the police conducted enquiry and closed the complaint a false. It is also stated that the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 13l of 2025 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge' Husnabad, along with I.A. No.286 of 2025, seeking attachment of the four FD Bonds, and that the same is pending.

3. Heard Mr. Dunna Ambedkar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr' B' Ravinder, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, and the leamed counsel appearing on behatIofthe 3rd respondent-Bank. Perused the record'

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner rnade submissions in line with the writ affidavit, essentially contending that the 3rd respondent-Bank is not acceding to the request of the petitioner :c pay the amounts under the four FD Bonds, despite the petitioner statir 3 that he lost the originat FD Bonds and producing a copy of the complaint riled before the Police' Husnabad'

5. Leamed counsel for the 3rd respondent-Bank contends that the Bank requires the original FD Bonds for paying out the maturity amounts as per the rules, and that the petitioner cannot merely produce Xerox copies of the FD Bonds to claim the maturity amounts.

6. Having considered the respective contentions, at the outset, it is to be noted that, though the leamed counsel for the petitioner sought to make submissions based on the writ affidavit, the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, have not been denied. Further, respondent No.4 has clearly set out the factual background underlying the entire drama that the petitioner sought to portray regarding the atleged loss of the aforestated original FD Bonds'

6.1 The facts, namely, (i) the filing of Suit O.S No 20 of 1022 before the principal Junior civil Judge, Husnabad, in respect of the house property by \ \ 4 wp_23412 2025 NBK, J Sindi Swarupa, the sister of the petitioner; (ii) the agreern( I t dared 16.09.2022 entered into between the petitioner and the 4th responderr. in the presence of two witnesses; and (iii) the admission of the 4th responc( 1t that the original FD Bonds are in his custody, having been handed over lv the petitioner in furtherance of the agreement dated 16.09.2022, with the un lcrstanding that the 4th respondent would retain custody o[the four origirial I'. ) Bonds and, at the time of registration of the 4th respondent's share in the house property in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would encash the I D Bonds and hand over the money to the 4th respondent-have not been rebL -ted by any reliable evidence. Further, it is the specific averment of the 4tlr respondent that he submitted a representation dated 12.06.2024 before th: Police, [Iusnabad, regarding the falsity of the petitioner's complaint about tl r loss of the original FD Bonds, and that the police conducted due enquiry intc he complaint of the petitioner and closed the complaint as false. 6,2 The averments of the 4th respondent at parirl raph No. 7 (c), (d) and (e) o[his counter affidavit, verbatim, read as follous: (b) ... (c) I submit that while pending the partition suir have come to compromise, settled our disputes amicatrl and well-wishers. The terms of compromise ate reduct.r the form of agreement on Rs.l00/- NonJudicial Stamp 1 2022 in the presence of witnesses. As a matter of fac1, No.l243 was exclusively in my possession bv compromise. and petitioner r before elders into writing in aper, dt.16-09- the suit house the time of (d) As per agreement, I agreed to execute regd. ! ale deed along with my mother (Balawa), brother (Prabhakarl and r:ceive amount covered under 4 fixed deposit bond with accruing ini( rest therein as 5 wp 23412_2025 NAK, ] sale consideration to extent of my share in suit house after disposal of the suit. Further I agreed to handover possession of the house No'l2- 43 by 26-09-2022, and the petitioner also agreed to keep the original FD bonds in my custody till registration of the house No'1243' Accordingly I handed over the aid house to the writ petitioner, since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoying the same' As such the petitioner handed over 4 original fixed deposit bonds to me which are in my custody till today. Further the petitioner specifically agreed to pay me amount by withdrawing the 4 FD bonds worth R'9,70'0001with accruing interest at the time of registration. (e) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was trying to withdraw said 4 FD bonds by suppressing true facts and gave complaint to the SHO, police station Husnabad as if FD bonds are misplaced somewhere. As such I gave rePresentation dt'12-o6-2024 to 3d respondent , dL1447'2025 to 2nd respondent' and rep'esentations dt 15-06-2024, dL17'O7 '2025 to SHO, police station Husnabad' The police, Husnabad has closed hi complaints after due enquiry because they were false." \ I I \

7. These aspects narrated by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit inspire confidence in his version, and the petitioner has not advanced any reliable afgument rebutting the contentions of the 4th respondent. Furthermore, the 4th respondent admits that the aforestated original IrD Bonds are available with him as on date, and that the petitioner kept the FD Bonds in his custody in furtherance of the agreement, under which the FD Bonds were to be encashed and the proceeds handed over to the 4th respondent towards sale consideration at the time of registration of the 4th respondent's share in HouSe property No. l2-43, Husnabad vitlage and Mandal, in favour of the petitioner. g. In view of the specific recitals in the counter affidavit fited by the 4th respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, categorically stating that the original FD Bonds were kept in his custody by the petitioner \ \ 6 wp-23412 2025 r'\ ' himself in furtherance of the amicable agreement reachel between them with regard to the partition of the property, this Court finds nr, .eason to even keep the matter pending any further, let alone granting any rel t f. NBK,

9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Hower t -. there shall be no order as to costs. IVliscellaneous petitions, ifany, pendinl. ;hall stand closed. St /. B.G. VYJAYANTHI ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR //(:7- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPU - 2. One CC to SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY, Advocat , [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI B. RAVINDER, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI S.A.RAZAK,ADVOCATEIOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies l I BN TKS HIGH COURT DATED:0211212025 ORDER WP.No.23412 ot 2025 _a: < ' r;,iE S14 .,.,.<:- r)' J - ':..) l\Ef] C .: .--,-r ,z r:\ j\'.. r '/'.' ..1:'"' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I t \q6