|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3756 (Mad-HC) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 226
Though cause of action was available to petitioner at earlier point of time, to claim interest at rate of 9 per cent on FDs kept with bank, not having claimed same in earlier writ petition, petitioner was estopped from filing second writ petition on same cause of action, Bank also could not be said to have unlawfully enriched itself by withholding petitioner's FDs amount, as it had paid applicable rate of 4% interest from date of maturity till date of payment.
|
Writ - Petitioner allegation was that bank did not transfer money after maturity of FD - Rate of interest -
Petitioner-Trust sought a direction to authorities to make the payment of interest for the closed FD account as per the orders of this Court at rate of 9% up till the date of transfer of funds to Trust Account by remitting a sum in the petitioner Trust Account in the Bank. Petitioner was a Trust founded by Mr. P and after his demise, Vice-Chairman had become the Chairman of the Trust. Founder Chairman had deposited a sum in five numbers of Fixed Deposits (FDs) with bank by transferring the money from the Trust Account in Bank. The above said amount was deposited in Bank to meet the expenditure for repayment of loan instalments availed of by the Trust for establishing educational institutions. Petitioner alleged that Bank did not transfer the money to the Trust Account after the FD's matured, in spite of the request made by the Trust. Bank withheld matured amount without either refunding or transferring to the Trust account. Hence, petitioner sought a direction to transfer the fund lying in five numbers of the FDs in favour of the loan account of assessee-Trust in the Bank Held: Though the cause of action was available to claim the interest at the earliest point of time, petitioner not having claimed the same, petitioner was estopped from filing the second writ petition on the same cause of action. Bank also cannot be said to have unlawfully enriched itself by withholding the petitioner's FDs amount, as it had paid the applicable rate of 4% interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Petition dismissed
A.Y. :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |