RAJ KUMAR AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions No. 14173 of 1998 and 742 of 1999 involving identical facts and common questions of law. In the CWP 14173 of 1999 there are two petitioners, namely, Raj Kumar and Vimal Kumar whereas in CWP 742 of 1999 there are five petitioners, namely, Dina Nath, Yash Kumar, Shanta, Rajinder Singh and Sat Pal. All the seven petitioners had deposited different amounts in fixed deposits with the respondent No. 4 the Oriental Bank of Commerce (for short the bank), Gobindpuri branch, Yamunanagar, the details of which are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_30_TLP&H0_1999_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that when they approached the bank on the date of maturity for releasing the payment against their FDRs, the bank informed them that the same had already been encashed by the respondent No. 3, the Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Ambala (for short "the ADI.") on the ground that the same belonged to the respondent No. 5, Ved Parkash Anand against whom proceedings under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the "Act") had been initiated by the IT Department. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 had no authority under the Act to prematurely encash their FDRs and take away the proceeds.

(3.) Notice was issued to the respondents and detailed replies have been filed on behalf of the bank as well as the ADI. The case put up on behalf of the bank was that the respondent No. 3 had searched the bank premises under the warrant of authorisation dt. 31st January, 1997, authorising her to seize the FDRs mentioned in the list annexed with the notice. The list included the FDRs of the petitioners. According to the bank the respondent No. 3 exerted a lot of undue pressure on the then Chief Manager Mr. L. K. Dham to encash the FDRs and issue draft in favour of the IT Department in respect of their proceeds. It is alleged that he was not permitted to take any legal opinion or consult any other officer and was held in illegal confinement in his office by the respondent No. 3 who insisted on compliance of her verbal order to hand over the drafts of the proceeds of the FDRs. It is under these circumstances that the bank claims to have encashed the FDRs and handed over the proceeds to the respondent No. 3. The bank has also stated that the information to this effect was sent to all the affected parties on the same day. The bank also claims to have written to the ADI on 4th March, 1997, requesting her to remit back the amount of Rs. 4,10,074 in respect of 24 FDRs (including the FDRs of the petitioners) on the ground that the same did not belong to the Anand Group and as such could not have been encashed and seized by her. A reminder to this effect was sent on 18th April, 1997. The bank also claims to have advised the owners of said FDRs to lodge their claims with the ADI. In fact vide letter, dt. 18th June, 1997, it also pointed out to the ADI that the beneficiaries of the FDRs were old aged persons, ladies, etc. who were illiterate and were not able to contact her at Ambala.