Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

I.SAIDUKUTTY versus STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


I.SAIDUKUTTY v. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE - OP No. 666 of 2002(D) [2007] RD-KL 14995 (6 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 666 of 2002(D)

1. I.SAIDUKUTTY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :06/08/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.666 OF 2002

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, then a non-resident Indian, had an NRE account with the Vakkom branch of State Bank of Travancore. The controversies raised by him led to his filing of a petition before the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, which resulted in Ext.P1 against the Bank. The Bank's appeal against that order was allowed by the State Commission as per Ext.P2. That was confirmed by the National Commission as per Ext.P3. The Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed as per Ext.P4. This writ petition is filed alleging that the plea of the Bank that has found favour before the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act is relatable to "Article 28 of the Term Deposit Agreement", which the petitioner is not aware of. He has therefore, filed this writ petition challenging that clause.

2. In opposition to this writ petition, the Bank has filed a counter affidavit on 3.1.2005 with copy to the counsel for the OP.666/02 Page numbers petitioner, clearly stating that the issue in hand relates to Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control Manual, which is applicable to all NRE deposits and that the action taken by the Bank in terms of that chapter has found favour wih the State Commission, National Commission, as also the Apex Court.

3. If the provisions of Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control Manual is to be challenged, I would expect the Union of India to be a party to this writ petition, which is not. That apart, the provisions of the Exchange Control Manual is built, as well, on other statutory provisions, including FEMA, FERA etc, which regulate the movement of money across the boundaries. Therefore, I find not justification to sustain any challenge against the provisions in Chapter 28 of the Exchange Control Manual. In the result, the writ petition fails, The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. OP.666/02 Page numbers
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.666 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

6th AUGUST, 2007.
=======================


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.