P.RAJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is a senior citizen and the 2nd petitioner is her daughter-in-law. They state that they had deposited money in the 5th respondent bank and the same is lying as fixed deposit in a cumulative deposit scheme. At the time of depositing the money, the petitioners were assured that they could withdraw the money at any time with attractive interest. They contend that when the petitioners approached the respondent bank for withdrawing the amount on its attaining the maturity, they refused to release the amount. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached the Arbitrator and filed ARC No. 748 of 2020 which is pending. According to the 1st petitioner, she is an octogenarian and her son is also suffering from serious neurological ailments. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P9 representation and for further directions to the Bank to disburse the amount lying in Fixed deposit. They have also sought for an expeditious consideration of the matter pending as ARC No.748 of 2020 before the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The respondents 4 and 5 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 petitioners can only be resolved by a full-fledged enquiry and it is for the said reason that the petitioners 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. It is further stated that going by the records in the Bank, the petitioners had availed a loan and a sum of Rs 35,54,484/ is due to the Bank from the petitioners.

(3.) I have considered the submissions. It appears that the petitioners have already approached the Arbitration Court and proceedings are pending. Before this Court, the respondents are not admitting the genuineness of the fixed deposit certificate which has been produced by the petitioners as Exhibit P8. 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.