MANDAKINI RAVERKR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of 13 writ petitions being W.P.No.4351/2008, W.P.No.4349/2008, W.P.No.5038/2008, W.P.No.5146/ 2008, W.P.No.5147/2008, W.P.No.5218/2008, W.P.No.5219/2008, W.P.No.5252/ 2008, W.P.No.5253/2008, W.P.No.5254/2008, W.P.No.5295/2008, W.P.No.5338/ 2008 and W.P.No.5339/2008, as the controversy in all these cases is identical and identical prayer has been made. The main order is being passed in WP No. 4351 of2006.

(2.) These petitions have been filed by some senior citizens raising a grievance against the rejection of their claim by Deputy Registrar and Liquidator of Maharashtra Brahman Sahkari Bank Limited-respondent no.3(hereinafter referred to as Official Liquidator). Additionally, a communication dated March 5, 2008 issued by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation-respondent no.6 (hereinafter referred to as Guarantee Corporation) has been challenged, whereby the petitioners have been communicated that the money deposited by the petitioners with the respondent-Bank could not be permitted to be refunded and the petitioner- depositors may have to wait for their turn for the repayment of unpaid amount.

(3.) Before noticing the facts leading to the filing of these petitions and dilating thereupon, it would be apt to recall the advice of V.R.Krishna Iyer, J. in (1979) 2 SCC 274 (Sant Ram Vs. Rajinder Lal), popularly remembered as Cobbler's case.