IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15627 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.V.GHEEVARGHESE ,KURANGATTU HOUSE EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SARAKUTTY GHEEVARGHESE, KURANGATTU HOUSE,EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIRAVOM BRANCH PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM 695 033. 4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION, NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PUNNEN ROAD TRIVANDRUM K695 039. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15627 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are husband and wife. They had deposited money with the second respondent bank. The dispute involved in this writ petition is whether the maturity value which was promised to be paid in respect of four fixed deposits was paid or not. 2. The pleadings disclose that the petitioners had deposited money with the second respondent bank in fixed deposits on 6.8.1991, 22.8.1991 and 30.9.1991. The deposits were closed on 18.8.2009, 8.9.2009 and 3.10.2009 on the expiry of the 18 years. The complaint of the petitioners is that they were not paid the promised maturity value, but only something lesser. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and disputed the entitlement of the petitioners to claim the amounts demanded in Exts.P2 and P3 letters. According to the second respondent, the full maturity value was paid to the petitioners applying the interest rates in force from time to time. It is contended relying on the endorsement in Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt that the petitioners were aware that the rate of interest is subject to variation depending on the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to W.P.(C) No.15627 of 2010 2 time. 4. It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioners had business transactions with the second respondent bank and that a dispute has arisen between the petitioners and the second respondent bank. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should have the dispute resolved by Arbitration as provided under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the contentions of both sides and reserving liberty with the petitioners to move the Arbitrator in terms of section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.