KOSHY JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a senior citizen. He states that he had deposited money in the 6th respondent bank and the same is lying as fixed deposit. At the time of depositing the money, the petitioner was assured that he could withdraw the money after the maturity period of three years with attractive interest. He contends that when the petitioner approached the respondent bank for withdrawing the amount on its attaining the maturity, they refused to release the amount. In the said circumstances, he approached this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court had directed the Joint Registrar, the 3rd respondent herein, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and issue appropriate orders for release of the deposits with applicable interest. However, the respondents, in spite of the said directions have not released the amount. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the Arbitrator and filed ARC No. 737 of 2020 which is pending. According to the petitioner, he has been diagnosed with cancer and any delay in disbursing the amount would result in grave travesty of justice. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 6th respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 and release the fixed deposit and for a further direction to the 4th respondent to dispose of the arbitration proceedings in an expeditious manner.

(2.) The respondents 5 and 6 have filed a counter wherein it is stated that the present Managing Committee assumed office only on 2.1.2020. According to the respondents, huge sums of money was misappropriated by the members of the previous managing committee with the assistance of certain employees and about Rs.38 Crores was siphoned off. It is contended that the genuineness of the fixed deposits/cumulative deposit receipts issued to the customers are being verified. Criminal cases and vigilance enquiry are also pending against the persons responsible. It is contended that the records have been seized by the police and also the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The genuineness of the deposit receipts relied on by the petitioner can only be resolved by a full-fledged enquiry and it is for the said reason that the petitioner had approached the arbitrator. It is stated that since the matter is pending before the Arbitrator, necessary directions can be issued to the arbitrator to expedite the proceedings and the respondents shall also cooperate with the proceedings.

(3.) I have considered the submissions. It appears that the petitioner has already approached the arbitration Court and proceedings are pending. Before this Court, the respondents are not admitting the genuineness of the fixed deposits which have been produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P1 series. In that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in short-circuiting the proceedings and issuing directions in this petition. I am of the considered opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the arbitration court to expedite the proceedings.