Whether bank can refuse to encash FDR issued without consideration?

Be that as it may, we do not see nor is there any discussion in the orders before us giving the basis on which the second FDR was issued. Assuming the FDR dated 8th March, 1996 was issued to the Appellant fraudulently, it was all the more obligatory on the Respondent-Bank to have taken action against its employees. As far as the Appellant is concerned, the only document that he had in his possession and rightly so was the FDR issued to him by the Respondent-Bank. The Appellant cannot be expected to produce anything more than what is given to him by the Bank which is the FDR receipt itself.

9. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the State Commission as well as the National Commission were in error in dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the National Commission and restore the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6850 of 2005

Decided On: 18.01.2017

 Pishora Singh Vs.  Bank of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 2696

Print Page

How to calculate interest if decretal amount deposited in court is kept in FDR?

When the matters were pending before the High Court, there was a direction vide order dated 04.02.2003 to deposit the Principal amount before the High Court. The amount was deposited on 03.03.2003. Subsequently, by order dated 22.05.2003, the High Court, on the request made by the respondent, directed the Court deposit to be made as a Fixed Deposit in a nationalist bank.

Placing reliance on the decision of Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Ranjit Singh Rana reported in (2012) 4 SCC 505, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that once the amount is deposited in Court, there is no liberty to pay interest in terms of the award.

Paragraph 15 of the Judgment reads as under :-

"The word 'payment' may have different meaning in different context but in the context of Section 37(1)(b); it means extinguishment of liability arising under the award. It signifies satisfaction of the award. The deposit of the award amount into the Court is nothing but a payment to the credit of the decree-holder.

In this view, once the award amount was deposited by the appellants before the High Court on May 24, 2001, the liability of post-award interest from May 24, 2001 ceased. The High Court, thus, was not right in directing the appellants to pay the interest @18% p.a. beyond May 24, 2001." In the present case, we find that the amount was to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit at the request made by the respondent and it is not seen that the respondent has made any request before the High Court for withdrawal of the amount deposited as per the directions by the High Court. However, it is submitted that the appellants have not deposited the full amount in terms of the award.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to interest as per award from the date of award till the principal amount was deposited in the High Court on 03.03.2003. From the said date of 03.03.2003 till it was withdrawn, the respondent shall be entitled only to the interest accrued on the principal amount in terms of the Fixed Deposit made as per the direction by the High Court.

Union of India & ANR Vs. M.P Trading & Investment RAC. Corp. Ltd.

[Civil Appeal Nos.8077-8079 of 2015 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36013-36015 of 2013]

Citation:2016(4) ALLMR 490 SC

Print Page

When MACT tribunal should not allow encashment of FDR prematurely?

In the background aforesaid, the Tribunal has no authority to entertain
the application for issuance of a direction contrary to what had been given in the final
award. It can be done only when such liberty is given in the final award in reference of
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Sushma Thoma & Ors. (supra). If the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Sushma Thomas is considered in
totality then firstly it is not a direction to the Tribunal but only a guideline. Those
guidelines are mainly for the safeguard of the compensation by appropriate investment.
Accordingly, while issuing the guidelines, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the various
aspects as to what adequate safeguard can be provided to feed from being flittered away by
the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. While giving
the directions therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court was cautious to grant liberty to apply for
withdrawal of amount in emergency. The Tribunal have been directed to invest it in more
than one Fixed Deposit so that if, need be, one of such FDR can be liquidated. The direction
to invest in more than one FDR can be given while passing the award and not subsequent to
it and in the same way, liberty to apply for withdrawal of FDR can be incorporated in the
final award so that any order subsequently would not amount to review but a consequence of
the liberty given in the final award itself. The Supreme Court and the High Court while
issuing directions or guidelines do not ask any Court to act beyond its jurisdiction and even if
power of review does not exist, then also, accept the application which amounts to review or
an order contrary to the directions in the award.
In view of facts aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned
order, rather for the reasons exist for denial of release of compensation prematurely. I am of
the opinion that such power does not exists with the Tribunal unless the Tribunal grants
liberty to apply for the withdrawal in the case of emergency while passing the final award
and otherwise, the Tribunal needs to save feed being flittered away owing to ignorance and

susceptibility to exploitation, which is happening now a days.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH,
JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.300/2009
(Kapil Lodha Vs. The Judge, MACT, Jaipur)

Date of Order : 10th March, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

REPORTABLE:
Citation: I(2015)ACC407(Raj.), 2015(1)ALLMR(JOURNAL)25

Print Page