G VAISHNAVI REDDY Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions were listed before this Court upon the directions dated 17.07.2013 of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side. As the two cases pertain to the same issue, they are amenable to disposal by way of this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in these two cases, G.Vaishnavi Reddy and G.Vikas Reddy, are siblings. Their grievance is with regard to the action of the Vijaya Bank, the respondent, in not paying them the amounts due under the fixed deposits standing in their names. G.Vaishnavi Reddy, the petitioner in W.P.No.20711 of 2013, is concerned with four fixed deposits while her brother, G.Vikas Reddy, the petitioner in W.P.No.20712 of 2013, is concerned with six fixed deposits. These deposits were made in the year 1999 by the father of the petitioners during their minority. G.Vikas Reddy was 7 years at that time while G.Vaishnavi Reddy was 5 years old. The fixed deposits were renewed thereafter from time to time. The petitioners claim that after attaining majority they approached the respondent bank in October, 2012 seeking to liquidate the deposits. However, the respondent bank did not oblige despite issuance of legal notices. They therefore approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.

(3.) IN its individual counter -affidavits filed in both the cases, the respondent bank asserted that the father of the petitioners was the Managing Partner of a registered partnership firm, M/s. G. Rajender Reddy and Co., and that various credit facilities were availed by the said firm. These facilities were in the form of a cash credit facility for Rs.10,00,000/ -, bank guarantee facility for Rs.1,15,00,000/ - and a loan against a motor vehicle. The respondent bank claimed that the firm provided a sum of Rs.51,00,000/ - (approximately) as margin money against the bank guarantees and this margin money was in the form of deposits held under lien by the respondent bank. According to the respondent bank, the subject fixed deposits standing in the names of the petitioners were also held under such lien and were therefore not amenable to liquidation at their request. The respondent bank stated that litigation was ongoing with the firm as regards the facilities availed by it. The respondent bank asserted that the loan facilities availed by the petitioners' father were utilized for the business purposes of the minors' family and that they were therefore estopped from claiming the maturity value of the deposits. The respondent bank further stated that the deposits were made by the petitioners' father jointly i.e. in his own name along with his minor children, and the petitioners therefore could not claim the amounts due thereunder independently.