DALSUKHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner, who is original Indian, was residing at Kuwait since many years and therefore, acquired status of NRI (Non Resident India ). In capacity as NRI, he had invested amount in FDRs, which lastly amounted to Rs. 1,98,980/- each, and such receipts were renewed further for period of seven years, and accordingly each was to be matured on 8. 5. 2001 of Rs. 4,15,500/ -. As per the petitioner, in all there were seven such FDRs/tdrs, which were payable on 8. 5. 2001, each of Rs. 4,15,500/ -. The petitioner was desirous to encash the deposits premature, when he was at Kuwait, however the bank insisted for surrendering of the original TDRS, which were reported by the petitioner as lost. Whereas, wife of the petitioner declared before the bank that she was having possession of the original TDRS. Because of such dispute, bank did not permit premature encashment of such TDRS. As per the petitioner, on account of no premature encashment permitted by the respondent-bank, cheques drawn by him were bounced, and he was also put in the prison for some time. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the same, the petitioner had to return India in February, 1998 and thereafter, he has not returned back to Kuwait and he is staying in India since then.

(2.) THEREFORE, since February, 1998, the petitioner started staying in India. The status at the most as NRI would continue for further period of six months from his entry to India, which would be August, 1998. Hence after August, 1998, the petitioner ceased to have the status of NRI, he stood as deemed as resident Indian for all purposes. Since, the petitioner had to undergo prison and there were disputes between petitioner and the bank, before the consumer forum, ultimately the petitioner had preferred Civil Suit No. 4749 of 2001, in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of the damages/compensation for Rs. 1,38,66,400/- with the interest from the respondent-bank and the said suit is pending even as on today.

(3.) WHEN the deposits reached to its maturity, the payment of such amount was not made. The petitioner had called upon the respondent-bank vide notice dated 12. 8. 2002, through his lawyer to make payment and for other prayers. However, the bank vide communication dated 19. 8. 2002, conveyed to the petitioner that since suit is pending, and the reply is filed in the suit, no further action is required to be taken. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached to this Court by the present petition praying the relief inter alia to direct respondent to forthwith release the deposits, which are known as TDRS (Term Deposit Receipts), as they have matured on 8. 5. 2001 and it is further prayed to direct respondent bank to release the amount dues on such TDRS with the interest at the rate of 24 percent. The petitioner has also prayed to direct respondent bank to take appropriate action against erring officer of the respondent-bank, since the petitioner has been illegally harassed and the officers have violated rules and regulations and the banking laws.