Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kishore Patodia (Huf) vs State Bank Of India on 16 September, 2019
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2311 of 2012
-----
1. Nand Kishore Patodia (HUF)
2. Purushottam Lal Patodia
3. Sushil Kumar Patodia .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Central Office, 8 th Floor, Madam Cama Marg, Mumbai-400 021 (Maharashtra).
2. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kutchery Road, Ranchi.
3. Deputy Director, National Savings Scheme, South Chotanagpur Division, RIT Building, First Floor, Circular Road, Ranchi.
4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Circular Road, Ranchi.
5. Regional Director, National Savings Institute, Bangalore.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the petitioners : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No.13 Date: 16.09.2019
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent- State Bank of India to show cause as to under what authority it has deducted substantial money while making payment of the deposited amount on maturity in the respective public provident fund accounts of the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-State Bank of India to forthwith make payment of the differential amount with suitable interest to the petitioners for the period the deducted amount was illegally withheld by the respondent-Bank. The petitioners have also prayed for payment of interest for the period from 1st April, 2010 to 27th September, 2010 which has not been paid to them.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
3. The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioners had opened their respective public provident fund accounts in the capacity of Hindu Undivided Family. The details of the said accounts are given as under:
Name A/c No. Date of opening of the account
Nand Kishore Patodia (HUF) 1264 26.3.1991
Purushottam Lal Patodia (HUF) 1781 3.3.1993
Sushil Kumar Patodia (HUF) 1780 4.3.1993
-2-
4. An amendment was carried out in the PPF Scheme, 1968 to the effect that the PPF (HUF) account could not be opened with effect from 13th May, 2005. Thereafter, some of the subscribers of PPF (HUF) whose accounts were closed between 13th March, 2005 to 7th December, 2010 were not paid interest at PPF rates on their deposits retained beyond the maturity period (without further subscriptions). However, on their representation, the concerned ministry vide letter dated 1st June, 2011 decided that the interest at PPF rate would be paid to those PPF (HUF) account which had attained maturity after 13th May, 2005 but were closed by the subscribers before 7th December, 2010 subject to the condition that the said accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without any further subscriptions.
5. The petitioners on completion of 15 years of validity of all the three PPF accounts extended those for another five years. On 31 st March, 2010, the balance amount of Rs.17,89,472.73, Rs.17,90,505.32 and Rs.17,10,437.14 were shown in the bank accounts of the petitioner no.1- Nand Kishore Patodia (HUF), petitioner no.2- Purushottam Lal Patodia (HUF) and petitioner no.3- Sushil Kumar Patodia (HUF), respectively. On 21st September, 2010, the petitioners applied for refund of the amount deposited in the said PPF accounts along with applicable interest. However, they were issued three cheques of Rs.13,15,594.73, Rs.15,35,285.32 and Rs.14,66,641.14, respectively, for their respective accounts and as such, according to the petitioners, the respondent-Bank deducted Rs.9,72,894/- (in total for all three accounts) without any cogent reason. The petitioners made various representations to the respondent-Bank for refund of illegally withheld amount, however, no heed was paid and hence the present writ petition.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while relying on paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 dated 20th November, 2013, submits that the claim made by the petitioners has, in fact, been admitted.
7. For better appreciation of the issue, paragraph no.13 of the said counter affidavit is quoted hereunder:-
-3-"13. That it is submitted that the Annexure E to G letter of the Ministry dated 25-05-2012 is important to settle the issue of the petitioners. According to Annexure E to G document, in the case of petitioners the following is the entitlement of the payments and interest amounts;
a) For the account No.1264 of Shri Nanda Kishore Patodia matured on 31-3-2006, the amount due to him is the balance that stood as on 31.-3.2006 and interest up to the date of closure of 27-9-2010 on the balance stood on 31.-3.2006. Any deposits made after 31-3-2006 should be refunded to the depositor without any interest.
b) For the account No.1781 of Shri Purushottam Lal Patodia matured on 31-3.2008, the amount due to him is the balance that stood as on 31-3-2008 and interest up to the date of closure of 27-9-2010 on the balance stood on 31-3-2008. Any deposits made after 31-3-2008 should be refunded to the depositor without any interest.
c) For the account No.1780 of Shri Sushil Kumar Patodia matured on 31-3-2008, the amount due to him is the balance that stood as on 31-3-2008 and interest up to the date of closure of 27.-
9-2010 on the balance stood on 31-3-2008. Any deposits made after 31-3-2008 should be refunded to the depositor without any interest.
d) As regards interest up to the date of closure of account, as per Rule 9(3) of PPF scheme, interest up to the last day of the month preceding the month in which application for withdrawal is made should be paid.
............
Accordingly in all the above 3 accounts interest should be paid up to 31-08-2010 and there will not be any interest from 01- 09-2010 to 27-09-2010 i.e. for the month of closure."
8. It would thus be evident that the respondent no.5 has admitted that in view of the letter of the Ministry dated 1st June, 2011, the petitioners are entitled for payment of interest up to 31st August, 2010 on the balance which stood in their PPF (HUF) accounts on the date of maturity i.e. 31st March, 2006 in one account and 31st March, 2008 in other two accounts. However, the respondent-Bank has paid interest to the petitioners only up to 31st March, 2006 and 31st March, 2008 in their respective accounts.
9. I have also gone through the letter dated 1st June, 2011 issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division), Government of India. The relevant part of the said letter is quoted hereunder:-
"4. Some of the subscribers of PPF (HUF) accounts had closed the accounts on maturity or thereafter between 13 th May, 2005 to 7.12.2010 (before the issue of the aforesaid amendment). Some of such account holders, were not paid interest at PPF rates on the deposits retained beyond the maturity period (wthout further subscriptions). Those subscribers had been representing that interest at PPF rate may also be paid to them on the deposits that were retained in PPF accounts beyond maturity period. The matter has been examined in this Ministry and it has been decided that interest at PPF rate would be paid on those PPF (HUF) accounts, which had attained the maturity after 13.5.2005 but closed by the subscribers before 7.12.2010, subject to the conditions that -4- the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions."
10. In view of the clarification made in the aforesaid letter dated 1st June, 2011, which has also been admitted by the respondent no.5 in the counter affidavit sworn by the Deputy Director, National Savings Institute, Government of India, Kolkata, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for payment of interest up to 31st August, 2010 on the balance which stood in their PPF (HUF) accounts on their respective maturity dates.
11. So far as entitlement of the petitioners for payment of interest from 1st September, 2010 to 27th September, 2010 is concerned, Clause-9 of the P.P.F. Scheme (Annexure-H to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5) would be relevant. On perusal of Clause- 9(3), it would transpire that the interest is payable up to the last date of the month preceding the month in which the application for withdrawal is made. In view of the said provision, the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the period from 1st September, 2010 to 27th September, 2010.
12. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have also prayed for payment of interest on the withheld amount. To appreciate the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, I have gone through the records and it appears that the petitioners have made various representations right from 6th October, 2010 seeking reimbursement of the withheld amount. However, even after issuance of letter dated 1st June, 2011 by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division), Government of India, the legitimate amount has not been paid to the petitioners. Thus, in my view, the petitioners are also entitled for interest on the withheld amount at PPF rate applicable during the relevant point of time i.e. with effect from 1st June, 2011 [i.e. the date of issuance of the letter by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division), Government of India] till the date of actual payment.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to pay the withheld amount of the aforesaid three PPF (HUF) accounts along -5- with applicable interest on PPF during the relevant period i.e. from 1st June, 2011 till the date of actual payment.
14. Considering the nature of the case, the respondent-Bank is directed to make payment of the entire amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/