^* IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISa N0.^5^ »ea ss •» jRH, BILASPUR IF 3011 <: ^>y- V6'-> ..••"" 6^"' 2. 3 ^ . .' '• ! .' - Pushpa Shamdasani, wife of Asudomal' Shamdasani, aged about 65 years, R/o. Building No. 20, Plat No. 201, Ashoka Ratan Raipur, Disfrict Raipur (C.G.). • ,! VERSUS State Bank of India, Through : Branch Manager, V.I.P. State Branch, Raipur, District- Raipur(C.G.), Narendra Kumar Shamdasani; Son of late Shri Asudomal Shamdasani, aged about 30 years, R/p. Bzmding No. 20, Plat.No. 201, Ashoka Ratan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). presently R/o. Puna (Maharastra), Reserve; . Bank of India, Through ; Reserve Manager, Regional Manager, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.j, WRIT_PET!TIO_I_UNDERART]:e_E®_2160FTHE COHgTITUTION OF IHDIA. The humble'petition. ofthe petitioner named above mosf respectfully submifsasunder:- , . 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS. As mentioned ins the cause title .<. 2. PARTIGULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS, HIGH COITRT OF CHHA'1T]S<TARH AT BII.ASPUR PETITIONER wpspn'N Kf^^^lN^tt,l\ 1 »2 WBJT PETmON CQ No, 5708 of2011 Pi.ishoa Shamdasani. \rERSUS State Bank oflndia & Others. WRIT PRTITTON IWIWR ARTICi.R 2-26 OF THK CONSTmjTTON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. AOTihotri. Present: Sliri Aman Kesharwani- Advocate tor tlie petitioner. Sl'iri Gautaiu Bnaduri, Auvouais for uie respondsni No. 1, (Passed ou 12"' day ofOctober, 2011) 1. Bv this oetition. the "etitioner seeks a direction to the resoondent- Basik to allow the petitioner to cancel the Tenn Deposit B-eceipt (for short 'the TDR't and to ooerate the various TDRs solelv •without interf'erenee ofthe resooudent No. 2. 2. Shri Kesharwani, leamed eouasel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that she deposited an atnouat of Rs. 30,00,000/- in Term Deposit Receipt, afi.er seliiag the residential property. Since the respondent No. 1, beine the son oftiie petitioaer, wa.s The only successor, the aame of the resnondent No. 2 was also included a.s ioint holder birt the mode of orieration was kent as "eifher or survivor". Shri Keshwa.rwani subnrits •that the respondent No. 2 is illegally withdrawing the interest. amount. Irom t^e bank using intemet baaking faciiity beca'ase of which the netitioner is facine OTeat hardshios a.s the intsresit. amoutit. is the onlv r source ofher livelihood. Thus. the resoondent No, 2 mav be restrained from withdra.wms: the interest^ amount. 3. On the other hand, Sbj-i Bhaduri, leamed coimsel a.npearine. for tlie resDondent-Ba.nk would submit that since the FDfi.s are iouitlv operated, it would aot be possible fbr the Bank to restram the respoadent No. 2 from withdrawing the interest. amount.. However, the n appropn is penmssiwe rules, after making a representation bythe petitioner on 11.08.2011 as the on-line bankine and ATM facilitv has been st.oooed. If tfae pet.itioner as wel! as respondent. No. 2 ent.er into an aimcable settlement, then oiriy the respondent. No. 2 may be restraiaed from withdrawinsthe interest. amount 4. Heard leamed couasel aoDearine and documents appended thereto. 5. It apDeare that the FDRs are beine iointlv and the oetitioner herselfhad entered tfae na.me ofthe resDondent No. 2 in the dociiment.s subinitted to the Bank and there is no illegality in withdrawing the 2 as even otherwise also, the Amit amoimt. by the respondent. No. respondent-Bank has doae the need&il which is within the banking mles and regiiiations. However, the relief, as scnight for by Ihe netitioner in this oetition caimot be sranted as the oetitioner has not nointed out any illegality or irregiuarity or breach of any statiitory mles or regiilations either by the respondent.-Bank or by the respondeiit.No. 2. 1 6. In view ofthe above, the writ petition is disnussed. ^^-^' s^^otfl iudge