Smt A Srujana v. State Bank Of Hyderabad

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.752 of 2017 O R D E R:

This writ petition was filed challenging the order of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to withdraw the Terms Deposit Vide SPL/ 20088951 dated 06.12.1990, which was deposited by the father of the petitioner in the respondent bank.

2. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondent bank on 01.10.2016 and in reply to the same, the respondent bank stated as follows:

" That the averments made in your notice in para 3 are false and baseless. That my client represents me that as per the Bank records, the above said Special Term Deposit stands on the name of your client along with Angari Raja Gangaram, Kacherla Ganesh, Margam Rajalingam and Rudra Venkatesham jointly and the same was informed to your client several times and further my client was several times advised your client that to withdraw the above said deposit, all the above persons including your client's presence is necessary.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, that my client is ready to pay the maturity amount of the above said deposit amount to your client along with Angari Raja Gangaram, Kacherla Ganesh, Margam Rajalingam and Rudra Venkatesham and I request you to advise your client not to make such false and baseless allegations against my client and advise her, to claim the above said deposit amount, the presence of the other persons who are the joint holders of the above said deposit also necessary and advise her to desist from initiating any proceedings against my client before any court of law or otherwise my client will be constrained to initiate legal proceedings against your client for damaging the credibility of my client's name and for which your client will be held responsible for the costs and consequences, including the cost of this reply legal notice is fixed at Rs.3,000/ -."

3. In view of the above reply of the bank, it is for the petitioner to approach the bank, as stated in the reply notice and by complying with the other rules of the bank, for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the term deposit on 06.12.1990. In the absence of compliance, as mentioned in the reply notice issued by the bank, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

4. Hence, giving liberty to the petitioner to comply with the rules and regulations, as mentioned in the reply notice by the respondent bank, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. _________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 27.03.2017 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.752 of 2017 Date: 27.03.2017 BSS