UNION OF INDIA Vs. VISHNU DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents (for short to be referred to as petitioners), in furtherance of a scheme called as 'Monthly Income Scheme' (MIS) announced by the appellants (respondents in the main writ petition), opened four accounts with the Post Office Saving Bank at Mubarak Mandi, Jammu. All these accounts were joint accounts. As per the Scheme, interest at the rate of 13% per annum, which was prevalent at the relevant time, started accruing. For reference, the details of the interest accrued from the date of opening of the accounts till their closure is as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_58_LAWS(J&K)8_2010_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In fact, after the span of 2/3 years, vide communication No.ICO-SB/1-7/2000-2001 dated 24.10.2000, the writ petitioners were forced to close all the four accounts and a sum of Rs.1,62,305/- which amount was already paid to the writ petitioners by way of interest, was ordered to be deducted. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.25,350/-as interest further accrued on all the four accounts was also withheld. This gave a cause of action to the writ petitioners to file the writ petition (OWP No. 971/2000) seeking quashment of the communication No.ICO-SB/1-7/2000-2001 dated 24.10.2000 with a further prayer to refund Rs.1,62,305/- alongwith amount withheld to the tune of Rs.25,350/-.

(3.) The stand taken by the appellants before the Writ Court was that in an individual account the maximum amount, which could be deposited was to the extent of Rs.2.04 lacs and in a joint account, it was to the extent of Rs.4.08 lacs. Since the petitioners had deposited Rs.10,80,000/-, which was in excess of the permissible limit, they were not entitled to the interest under the Scheme beyond the amount of Rs.4.08 lacs and, as such, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,62,305/- accrued as interest was rightly ordered to be deducted while refunding the excess amount. Since the petitioners were also not entitled to any interest with regard to these four accounts, Rs.25,350/- was also withheld. In fact, commission paid to the agent was also deducted in this case.