Allahabad High Court
Rahul Sharma And Another vs Cdr Vineet Kumar Sharma on 9 August, 2024
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:129812-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 319 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- Cdr Vineet Kumar Sharma Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Mishra,Divyendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Amrish Sahai,Tanmay Sadh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants in review, Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for the original petitioner, Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent Bank and Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, holding brief of learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. The principal submission of learned counsel for the applicants in review is that the Court has not taken note of the fact that after the death of original account holder, the original petitioner had entered into a settlement with the applicants in review/respondent nos.3 and 4 in the original writ petition with respect to the moneys lying deposited against the TDR Nos. 50532431644, 50532431521, 50532431349, 50532431203 and 50532430833. He would also submit that there is a succession suit pending with respect to the rights being claimed by the original petitioner and the present applicants in review over those deposits.
3. It is his further submission that if notice was issued to the respondents, such facts could have been brought to the notice of the Court.
4. On such submission, upon a query made, learned counsel for the applicants in review would fairly state that at present there is no injunction order operating in favour of the applicants in review as may restrain the Bank from releasing the money lying deposited against the above described TDRs in favour of the original petitioner or as may restrain the original petitioner from releasing that money.
5. In that fact, considering the statutory law contained in Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the precedential law noted in the order sought to be reviewed, we do not find any case made out as may allow for any different view to be taken. In so far as the money that may have been released in favour of the original petitioner, it has already been noted in the order under review that the original petitioner would remain liable to account for the same in accordance with law of succession.
6. The review application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Salim (Manjive Shukla, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)