B.V. Kalpana Represented by Shri Vs. the Madras Purasawalkam Hindi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an application filed by b. v. kalpana. daughter as well as nominee of (late) b.k. viswanathan and (late) b.v. meera bai, represented by shri b.v. suresh kumar. court appointed guardian, under section 45qa(2) of the reserve bank of india act. 1934 ("the act"), claiming refund of the deposit amounts amounting to rs. 20,000/- along with interest from the madras purasawalkam hindi janopakara saswatha nidhi limited ("the company").2. according to the applicant, b.k. viswanathan and b.v. meera bai, both since deceased had jointly deposited with the company an aggregate sum of rs. 20,000/- on 01.07.1997 in fixed deposit accounts, namely.ccd 45/9711 and ccd 45/9712 of rs. 10,000/- each, which were matured on 01.04.2001. in the meanwhile, both the depositors had expired prior to maturity of the deposits. b.v. kalpana. being a nominee of the depositors became entitled to the proceeds of matured deposits. the nominee is a mentally retarded person and therefore, the applicant herein, namely. b.v. suresh kumar brother of the nominee, by an order dated 26.04.2001 made in o.p. no. 167 of 2001. on the file of high court of judicature at madras, came to be appointed as guardian of the person of b.v. kalpana and her property. thereafter, the applicant approached the company, with all relevant documents, namely, order of the high court, death certificates of depositors, legal heir certificate and original fixed deposit receipts. the company after scrutiny of the documents lodged with it by the applicant during may 2001. issued a claim form and also obtained left hand thumb impression of the nominee at the office premises, but surprisingly insisted for a medical certificate, since the order in o.p. no. 167 of 2001. does not reflect the subject deposits and therefore refused to settle the maturity proceeds, thereby committed default, entitling the applicant to invoke the provisions of section 45qa(2) of the act. the company's insistence for production of the medical certificate is borne by its communication dated 11.07.2006 addressed to registrar of companies. the company issued a fresh claim form on submitting the amended court order dated 17.10.2005 made in application no. 2860 of 2005 in o.p. no. 167 of 2001. incorporating the particulars of deposits in the name of the deceased depositors. the company is fully aware of the claim made by the applicant and holding the deposits without any judicious reasons and. therefore, liable to pay the maturity proceeds along with the prevalent rate of interest with effect from 11.04.2001, being date of maturity to till date of settlement of the claim. the company, inspite of repeated demands made by the applicant and the notice dated 24.12.2005. failed to settle the maturity proceeds with upto date interest and hence the present application.3. according to shri r. venkataraman, learned counsel, the deposits got matured and became payable as early as on 01.04.2001. before which both the depositors reportedly died, without claiming the deposits. however, the applicant filed with the company on 04.12.2005. the claim form on behalf of the nominee of the aforesaid deposits, as guardian appointed by the high court along with copies of the death certificates in respect of the deceased depositors and the order dated 26.04.2001 appointing him as the guardian and the order dated 30.09.2005.incorporating the particulars of the deposits held in the name of the deceased depositors, thereby empowering the applicant to collect the maturity proceeds of the deposits. thus, it is clear that the applicant himself came to know about those deposits with the company only in the year 2005 and therefore, no claim could have been lodged in may 2001.as claimed by the applicant. the claim of the applicant towards interest after the date of maturity will not lie. in view of the fact that interest will cease to accrue from the date of maturity of deposit, as per the terms of the deposits. the company as a gesture offered, provided the deposits are renewed, to pay interest at the rate of 4% from the date of maturity till the date of renewal and interest at the prevailing rate for the renewed period. the applicant neither accepted the proposal put forth by the company nor surrendered the discharged deposit receipts, to enable the company to make payment of the matured value of the deposits. the applicant is demanding interest even after the date of maturity contrary to the terms and conditions governing the deposits, which are explicitly stated on the reverse of the deposit receipts. the claim form together with the supporting documents were submitted with the company only on 04.12.2005 and, therefore, the very application is not maintainable, more-so-when the company never committed any default in settlement of the maturity proceeds. in view of the above, the applicant may be directed to surrender the discharged deposit receipts to enable the company, to pay the maturity value of the deposits in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deposits.4. i have considered the elaborate arguments of learned counsel. the short issue before me is whether the applicant is entitled for future interest after maturity of the deposits, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. the facts not in dispute are that b.k. viswanathan and b.v. meera bai. both since deceased had jointly deposited in july.1997 with company an aggregate amount of rs. 20.000/- in two fixed deposit accounts, which were matured on 01.04.2001. b.v. kalpana. a mentally retarded daughter of the depositors, being nominee of the depositors became entitled to the maturity proceeds of both the deposits. b.v. suresh kumar, brother of the nominee. by an order dated 26.04.2001 obtained in o.p. no. 167 of 2001 on the file of the high court of judicature of madras, was appointed as guardian of the person b.v. kalpana and her property and thus, became entitled to collect the maturity proceeds of the deposits from the company.while, the applicant asserts that the claim form has been lodged with the company as early as in may 2001. it is stoutly denied by the latter, according to which, the claim has been duly lodged with necessary supporting documents only in december 2005. in this context, the claim and counter claim of the respective parties must be considered.by virtue of section 45qa(2) of the act. where a company failed to repay any deposit or part thereof, in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the company law board may. if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on the application of the depositor, direct the company to make repayment of such deposit or part thereof, in the manner as may be specified. it shall, therefore, be seen whether there has been a proper lodgment of the claim in may 2001, in order to mulct the company with interest liability, as claimed by the applicant.it is on record that the applicant had applied in november 2000. under sections 52 and 53 of the mental health act, 1987 before the high court of judicature at madras in o.p. no. 167 of 2001. for appointing him as guardian of b.v. kalpana and her properties, both immovable and movables, described in the schedule forming part of the petition, which do not include the fixed deposits, being subject matter of the present application. consequently, the order dated 26.04.2001 made in o.p. no.167 of 2001. appointing the applicant herein as guardian of the person of b.v. kalpana and her property did not cover the subject deposits.against this background, the rejoinder affidavit sworn by the applicant on 15.11.2006 to the effect that "the respondent company...had arrogantly insisted for a medical certificate pointing out that the respondent co's deposit receipts does not find place in the order of the o.p. no. 167/2001" will throw light on the contentious issue. it is clear that the company had insisted for a medical certificate in respect of the mentally retarded nominee, for lack of details regarding the deposits in question in the order dated 26.04.2001 obtained in o.p.no. 167 of 2001. which compelled the applicant to approach again the high court of judicature at madras in july. 2005 by making an application in 2860 of 2005 in o.p. no. 167 of 2001 for incorporating, inter-alia, the deposits in the name of the deceased b.k. viswanathan and b.v. meera bai kept with the company, in the order dated 26.04.2001. appointing the applicant as guardian of b.v. kalpana and her property. in this connection, the affidavit dated 11.07.2005 filed by the applicant before the high court assumes importance, the relevant portion of which reads as under - 5. i further submit that this hon'ble court by order dated 26.04.2001 appointed myself as guardian of the person of b. v. kalpana who is mentally regarded person and her property more fully set out in the schedule items in the o.p. until further order of this hon'ble court. 6. i humbly submit that when we were clearing old papers and records during colour washing of the house we found out certain deposit receipts kept in a brown cover and they were in the joint name of b.k viswanathan and b.v meerabai out parents. the deposits were made in the year 1996, 1997 maturing in the years 2003. 2004. 7. i submit that on enquiry with those institutions we come to know that b. v. kalpana is named as nominee to receive the proceeds in the event of the death of the depositors. 8. i humbly submit that when the order of this hon'ble court dated 26.04.2001 was produced and shown to the concerned institutions they refused to accept out request and wanted me to include those deposits omitted to include in the schedule to the o.p. no. 167 of 2001.the high court by an order dated 30.09.2005 allowed the amendment to the schedule made in the order dated 26.04.2001 in o.p. no. 167 of 2001. pursuant to which the details of the subject deposits came to be incorporated on 01.10.2005 in the order dated 26.04.2001 of the high court. the sequence of events would show that the claim made by the applicant in may 2001 without the particulars of the deposits in the order dated 26.04.2001 cannot be deemed to have been duly and properly lodged by the applicant. the admission of the company in its communication dated 11.07.2006 addressed to the registrar of companies insisting for production of a medical certificate in respect of b.v.kalpana will in no way improve the claim of the applicant, especially when, the claim has been duly lodged only in december 2005. in view of this, it cannot be contended that the company committed default in settlement of maturity proceeds in may 2001 and therefore, the claim of the applicant for future interest, which will cease to accrue from the date of maturity of deposit, as per the terms and conditions governing the deposits, is rejected. ordered accordingly. this however, does not preclude the company from extending its gesture to the applicant to pay interest at the rate of 4% from the date of maturity till the date of renewal and interest at the prevailing rate for the renewed period, as already exercised at the earlier point of time, provided the applicant is agreeable to renew the deposits and lodge the duly discharged fixed deposits in favour of the company. with these directions, the company application stands disposed of.

Judgment:
1. This is an application filed by B. V. Kalpana. daughter as well as nominee of (late) B.K. Viswanathan and (late) B.V. Meera Bai, represented by Shri B.V. Suresh Kumar. Court appointed guardian, under Section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act. 1934 ("the Act"), claiming refund of the deposit amounts amounting to Rs. 20,000/- along with interest from the Madras Purasawalkam Hindi Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Limited ("the Company").

2. According to the applicant, B.K. Viswanathan and B.V. Meera Bai, both since deceased had jointly deposited with the Company an aggregate sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 01.07.1997 in fixed deposit accounts, namely.

CCD 45/9711 and CCD 45/9712 of Rs. 10,000/- each, which were matured on 01.04.2001. In the meanwhile, both the depositors had expired prior to maturity of the deposits. B.V. Kalpana. being a nominee of the depositors became entitled to the proceeds of matured deposits. The nominee is a mentally retarded person and therefore, the applicant herein, namely. B.V. Suresh Kumar brother of the nominee, by an order dated 26.04.2001 made in O.P. No. 167 of 2001. on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madras, came to be appointed as guardian of the person of B.V. Kalpana and her property. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Company, with all relevant documents, namely, order of the High Court, death certificates of depositors, legal heir certificate and original fixed deposit receipts. The Company after scrutiny of the documents lodged with it by the applicant during May 2001. issued a claim form and also obtained left hand thumb impression of the nominee at the office premises, but surprisingly insisted for a medical certificate, since the order in O.P. No. 167 of 2001. does not reflect the subject deposits and therefore refused to settle the maturity proceeds, thereby committed default, entitling the applicant to invoke the provisions of Section 45QA(2) of the Act. The Company's insistence for production of the medical certificate is borne by its communication dated 11.07.2006 addressed to Registrar of Companies. The Company issued a fresh claim form on submitting the amended court order dated 17.10.2005 made in Application No. 2860 of 2005 in O.P. No. 167 of 2001. incorporating the particulars of deposits in the name of the deceased depositors. The Company is fully aware of the claim made by the applicant and holding the deposits without any judicious reasons and. therefore, liable to pay the maturity proceeds along with the prevalent rate of interest with effect from 11.04.2001, being date of maturity to till date of settlement of the claim. The Company, inspite of repeated demands made by the applicant and the notice dated 24.12.2005. failed to settle the maturity proceeds with upto date interest and hence the present application.

3. According to Shri R. Venkataraman, learned Counsel, the deposits got matured and became payable as early as on 01.04.2001. before which both the depositors reportedly died, without claiming the deposits. However, the applicant filed with the Company on 04.12.2005. the claim form on behalf of the nominee of the aforesaid deposits, as guardian appointed by the High Court along with copies of the death certificates in respect of the deceased depositors and the order dated 26.04.2001 appointing him as the guardian and the order dated 30.09.2005.

incorporating the particulars of the deposits held in the name of the deceased depositors, thereby empowering the applicant to collect the maturity proceeds of the deposits. Thus, it is clear that the applicant himself came to know about those deposits with the Company only in the year 2005 and therefore, no claim could have been lodged in May 2001.

as claimed by the applicant. The claim of the applicant towards interest after the date of maturity will not lie. in view of the fact that interest will cease to accrue from the date of maturity of deposit, as per the terms of the deposits. The Company as a gesture offered, provided the deposits are renewed, to pay interest at the rate of 4% from the date of maturity till the date of renewal and interest at the prevailing rate for the renewed period. The applicant neither accepted the proposal put forth by the Company nor surrendered the discharged deposit receipts, to enable the Company to make payment of the matured value of the deposits. The applicant is demanding interest even after the date of maturity contrary to the terms and conditions governing the deposits, which are explicitly stated on the reverse of the deposit receipts. The claim form together with the supporting documents were submitted with the Company only on 04.12.2005 and, therefore, the very application is not maintainable, more-so-when the Company never committed any default in settlement of the maturity proceeds. In view of the above, the applicant may be directed to surrender the discharged deposit receipts to enable the Company, to pay the maturity value of the deposits in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deposits.

4. I have considered the elaborate arguments of learned Counsel. The short issue before me is whether the applicant is entitled for future interest after maturity of the deposits, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts not in dispute are that B.K. Viswanathan and B.V. Meera Bai. both since deceased had jointly deposited in July.

1997 with Company an aggregate amount of Rs. 20.000/- in two fixed deposit accounts, which were matured on 01.04.2001. B.V. Kalpana. a mentally retarded daughter of the depositors, being nominee of the depositors became entitled to the maturity proceeds of both the deposits. B.V. Suresh Kumar, brother of the nominee. by an order dated 26.04.2001 obtained in O.P. No. 167 of 2001 on the file of the High Court of Judicature of Madras, was appointed as guardian of the person B.V. Kalpana and her property and thus, became entitled to collect the maturity proceeds of the deposits from the Company.

While, the applicant asserts that the claim form has been lodged with the Company as early as in May 2001. it is stoutly denied by the latter, according to which, the claim has been duly lodged with necessary supporting documents only in December 2005. In this context, the claim and counter claim of the respective parties must be considered.

By virtue of Section 45QA(2) of the Act. where a company failed to repay any deposit or part thereof, in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board may. if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on the application of the depositor, direct the company to make repayment of such deposit or part thereof, in the manner as may be specified. It shall, therefore, be seen whether there has been a proper lodgment of the claim in May 2001, in order to mulct the Company with interest liability, as claimed by the applicant.

It is on record that the applicant had applied in November 2000. under Sections 52 and 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.P. No. 167 of 2001. for appointing him as guardian of B.V. Kalpana and her properties, both immovable and movables, described in the schedule forming part of the petition, which do not include the fixed deposits, being subject matter of the present application. Consequently, the order dated 26.04.2001 made in O.P. No.167 of 2001. appointing the applicant herein as guardian of the person of B.V. Kalpana and her property did not cover the subject deposits.

Against this background, the rejoinder affidavit sworn by the applicant on 15.11.2006 to the effect that "the Respondent Company...had arrogantly insisted for a medical certificate pointing out that the respondent Co's deposit receipts does not find place in the Order of the O.P. No. 167/2001" will throw light on the contentious issue. It is clear that the Company had insisted for a medical certificate in respect of the mentally retarded nominee, for lack of details regarding the deposits in question in the order dated 26.04.2001 obtained in O.P.No. 167 of 2001. which compelled the applicant to approach again the High Court of Judicature at Madras in July. 2005 by making an application in 2860 of 2005 in O.P. No. 167 of 2001 for incorporating, inter-alia, the deposits in the name of the deceased B.K. Viswanathan and B.V. Meera Bai kept with the Company, in the order dated 26.04.2001. appointing the applicant as guardian of B.V. Kalpana and her property. In this connection, the affidavit dated 11.07.2005 filed by the applicant before the High Court assumes importance, the relevant portion of which reads as under - 5. I further submit that this Hon'ble Court by order dated 26.04.2001 appointed myself as Guardian of the person of B. V. Kalpana who is mentally regarded person and her property more fully set out in the schedule items in the O.P. until further order of this Hon'ble Court.

6. I humbly submit that when we were clearing old papers and records during colour washing of the house we found out certain deposit receipts kept in a brown cover and they were in the joint name of B.K Viswanathan and B.V Meerabai out parents. The deposits were made in the year 1996, 1997 maturing in the years 2003. 2004.

7. I submit that on enquiry with those institutions we come to know that B. V. Kalpana is named as nominee to receive the proceeds in the event of the death of the depositors.

8. I humbly submit that when the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 26.04.2001 was produced and shown to the concerned institutions they refused to accept out request and wanted me to include those deposits omitted to include in the schedule to the O.P. No. 167 of 2001.

The High Court by an order dated 30.09.2005 allowed the amendment to the schedule made in the order dated 26.04.2001 in O.P. No. 167 of 2001. pursuant to which the details of the subject deposits came to be incorporated on 01.10.2005 in the order dated 26.04.2001 of the High Court. The sequence of events would show that the claim made by the applicant in May 2001 without the particulars of the deposits in the order dated 26.04.2001 cannot be deemed to have been duly and properly lodged by the applicant. The admission of the Company in its communication dated 11.07.2006 addressed to the Registrar of Companies insisting for production of a medical certificate in respect of B.V.Kalpana will in no way improve the claim of the applicant, especially when, the claim has been duly lodged only in December 2005. In view of this, it cannot be contended that the Company committed default in settlement of maturity proceeds in May 2001 and therefore, the claim of the applicant for future interest, which will cease to accrue from the date of maturity of deposit, as per the terms and conditions governing the deposits, is rejected. Ordered accordingly. This however, does not preclude the Company from extending its gesture to the applicant to pay interest at the rate of 4% from the date of maturity till the date of renewal and interest at the prevailing rate for the renewed period, as already exercised at the earlier point of time, provided the applicant is agreeable to renew the deposits and lodge the duly discharged fixed deposits in favour of the Company. With these directions, the company application stands disposed of.