* THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION NO.12612 OF 2008 % 30/09/2008 # The Prudential Cooperative Bank Shareholders and Depositors Welfare Association, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. Rep. by its General Secretary, Pattem Suryaprakash Rao S/o. P.Venkateswara Rao, Aged:61 years, R/o. 3-1-37, Swamy Vivekananda Street, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER Vs. $ 1 Deposit Insurance and Credit Guaranctee Corporation, RBI Building 2nd Floor, Opp.Mumbai Central Railway Station Mumbai-400008. 2 The Prudential Sorporative Bank Ltd., 8-1-381, R.P.Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Liquidator. .....RESPONDENT(S) < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioner : MR.V.SRINIVAS ^ Counsel for the respondents : MR.M.P.UGLE Cases referred : -- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12612 of 2008 Between: The Prudential Cooperative Bank Shareholders and Depositors Welfare Association, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. Rep. by its General Secretary, Pattem Suryaprakash Rao S/o. P.Venkateswara Rao, Aged:61 years, R/o. 3-1-37, Swamy Vivekananda Street, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deposit Insurance and Credit Guaranctee Corporation, RBI Building 2nd Floor, Opp.Mumbai Central Railway Station Mumbai-400008. 2 The Prudential Sorporative Bank Ltd., 8-1-381, R.P.Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Liquidator. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders direction or directions to direct the 1st respondent to pay the admitted amount of Rs.227.13 crores to the depositors of the 2nd respondent as per Section 16 and 17 of the Act 47 of 1961 ( Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Cooperation Act ) and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to act Under section 16 and 17 of the Act to see that all the depositors of the Bank Receive their dues in full as per Section 16 of the Act After adjusting the amounts already paid to them and also restrain the 2nd respondent from making any repayment to the1st respondent under Section 21 of the Act of any amount contrary to section 16 and 17 of the Act and as per the assurance given to this Hon'ble Court W.A.Nos. 1053/2005 and Batch dated10.10.2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.P.UGLE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12612 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be a registered society representing the shareholders and depositors of the 2nd respondent Bank. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus directing the 1st respondent Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.227.13 crores to the depositors of the 2nd respondent Bank as per Sections 16 & 17 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 to see that all the depositors of the Bank receive their dues in full and also to restrain the 2nd respondent Bank from making any repayment to the 1st respondent Corporation. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent Bank was wound up vide orders of the Reserve Bank of India, dated 6.12.2004. Pursuant thereto, a Liquidator was appointed on 7.12.2004 by the Commissioner of Co-operative Societies and he assumed the charge on 8.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same, one of the shareholders of the 2nd respondent Bank ﬁled W.P.No.23156 of 2004 seeking a Mandamus to quash the proceedings of Reserve Bank of India, dated 6.12.2004. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 5.5.2005 thereby setting aside the impugned order of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). However, W.A.No.1053 of 2005 preferred by the Reserve Bank of India along with a batch of cases was allowed by a Division Bench by Judgment dated 10.10.2007 thereby upholding the order of winding up of the 2nd respondent Bank. In the instant case, the petitioner association alleges that the 1st respondent Corporation which is a statutory body incorporated under the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act 47 of 1961’) for the purpose of insurance of deposits and guaranteeing of credit facility, has been seeking recovery of the amounts from the 2nd respondent Bank even before the claims of all the depositors of the 2nd respondent are settled. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent Corporation is bound to pay a total sum of Rs.227.13 crores to the depositors either directly or through the 2nd respondent Bank. It is alleged that as against Rs.227.13 crores, the 1st respondent Corporation paid only a sum of Rs.75.59 crores so far by the 1st respondent Corporation and even before paying the balance to the depositors, the 1st respondent Corporation demanded reimbursement of the said amount from the 2nd respondent Bank contrary to the provisions of the Act 47 of 1961. Hence this writ petition to direct the 2nd respondent Bank not to make any repayment to the 1st respondent Corporation till all the depositors of the Bank receive their dues in full. Separate counter-aﬃdavits have been ﬁled by the respondents 1 & 2 denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act 47 of 1961 mandates that the Liquidator shall repay to the 1st respondent the amounts claimed by it and therefore no Mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to act in contravention of Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act 47 of 1961. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail and perused the material on record. The 1st respondent Corporation is established under The Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 for insuring deposits in Commercial Banks. The scheme of the Act shows that the Corporation insures all deposits in Commercial Banks and a premium rate would be determined by the Corporation from time to time with the previous approval of the Central Government. The Corporation’s liability will arise in the event of liquidation of a Bank. In the case on hand, since the 2nd respondent Bank was wound up and a Liquidator was appointed, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent Corporation is liable to be pay to the depositors of the 2nd respondent Bank in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also clear from the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent Corporation admitted the claim made by the 2nd respondent to the extent of Rs.227.13 crores. Out of Rs.227.13 crores the 1st respondent Corporation already released a sum of Rs.75.59 crores on 25.01.2007. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Corporation sought repayment of the said amount of Rs.75.59 crores and accordingly the 2nd respondent Bank repaid a sum of Rs.40.59 crores upto 23.5.2008. At that stage, the present writ petition has been ﬁled contending that it is not permissible for the 2nd respondent Bank to start repayment of the amounts to the Corporation till the entire deposits to the tune of Rs.227.13 crores is paid to the depositors. For proper appreciation of the above contention, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder : “16. Liability of Corporation in respect of insured deposits:-- (1) Where an order for winding-up or liquidation of an insured bank is made, the Corporation shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to pay to every depositor of that bank in accordance with the provisions of Sec.17 an amount equal to the amount due to him in respect of his deposit in that bank at the time when such order is made: Provided that the liability of the Corporation in respect of an insured bank referred to in Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 or Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) of Sec. 13Cl shall be limited to the deposits as on the date of the cancellation of the registration : Provided further that the total amount payable by the Corporation to any one depositor in respect of his deposit in that bank in the same capacity and in the same right shall not exceed one lakh rupees. Provided further that the Corporation may, from time to time, having regard to its ﬁnancial position and to the interest of the banking system of the country as a whole, raise, with the previous approval of the Central Government, the aforesaid limit of one thousand and five hundred rupees. (2) … … .. .. …. … (3) … … .. .. …. … (4) … … .. .. …. …” “21. Repayment of the amount to Corporation :-- (1) Where any amount has been paid under Sec. 17 or Sec. 18 or any provision therefore has been made under Sec. 20, the Corporation shall furnish to the liquidator or to the insured bank or to the transferee bank, as the case may be, information as regards the amount so paid or provided for. (2 ) On receipt of the information under sub- section (1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force,-- (a) the liquidator shall, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, repay to the Corporation out of the amount, if any, payable by him in respect of any deposit such sum or sums as make up the amount paid or provided for by the Corporation in respect of that deposit; (b) .. .. … … … ..” In exercise of the power conferred by Section 50 (3) of the Act the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961 (for short, ‘Regulations’). Section 22 of the Regulations which provides the procedure for repayment to the Corporation under Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act runs as under : “22. The amounts repayable to the Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act shall be paid from time to time by,-- (a) the liquidator as soon as the realizations and other amounts in his hands, after making provision for expenses payable by that time, are suﬃcient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa in the Rupee to each depositor. (b) … … .. … .. …” On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the liability of the Corporation to pay to every depositor arises once an order of winding-up of the insured bank is made. So far as repayment of the amount to the Corporation is concerned, Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act makes it clear that the liquidator has to repay the Corporation out of the amounts payable by him in respect of any deposit in the manner prescribed. Section 22 of the Regulations provides such procedure stating that the amounts repayable to the Corporation shall be paid from time to time as soon as realizations and other amounts in the hand of the liquidator are suﬃcient to enable him to declare a dividend of not less than one paisa in the Rupee to each depositor after making provision for expenses payable by that time. Thus, the only restriction upon the liquidator is to ensure that the amounts in his hands are suﬃcient to enable him to declare a dividend to each depositor. Except that, there is no other provision either under the Act or the Regulations which prohibits the liquidator to make repayments to the Corporation. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the repayment cannot be made by the 2nd respondent Bank till the entire amount of Rs.227.13 Crores is received by the depositors of the 2nd respondent Bank is untenable. As a matter of fact, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Bank, it is explained that the Bank has recovered Rs.158.48 crores after 7.12.2004 and it has yet to recover Rs.100.66 crores under Principal plus Interest as on 1.6.2006 in 2305 accounts. It is also stated that the Bank has Rs.18.14 crores in its Current Account and Rs.15.80 crores in Fixed Deposit and under attachment by the Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Thus, a total sum of Rs.33.94 crores is still available with the Bank. Thus, the 2nd respondent made it clear that all the depositors of the Bank would receive their amounts even if Rs.35 crores is repaid to the 1st respondent Corporation. It is also relevant to note that the 1st respondent Corporation while releasing Rs.75.59 crores towards the insured claim made it clear in the covering letter addressed to the Bank that the Corporation has right of repayment in preference over the claims of other creditors and as such whenever the amount of recovery after meeting the expenses exceeding 1% of total deposit, the 2nd respondent should remit the appropriate amount to the Corporation. The claim of the 1st respondent Corporation being in terms of the statutory provisions cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Similarly, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner society that on account of repayment to the 1st respondent, the depositors of the 2nd respondent Bank would be denied the admitted amounts due to them appears to be without any basis in the light of the resources available to the 2nd respondent Bank as explained in its counter-affidavit. Hence, the repayment being made by the 2nd respondent Bank to the 1st respondent Corporation in accordance with Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act read with Section 22 of the Regulations cannot be found fault with and no Mandamus as prayed for can be issued compelling the 2nd respondent to act in contravention of the statute. The Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2008 gbs Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs