THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1046 OF 2011 DT.21.10.2011 Between: Jujjuri Venkata Koteswara Rao s/o Adinarayana … Petitioner And The Manager, Andhra Bank, Phirangipuram branch, Phirangipuram village and Mandal, Guntur District … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri N.Subba Rao Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1046 OF 2011 ORDER: The suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.34,870.78 being the interest said to have been claimed by the defendant bank excessively from the plaintiff is dismissed. It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the raid conducted in his house certain gold jewellery has been seized and FDRs in the respondent’s bank were also attached. It is stated that as per the request of the appellant for retention of the gold jewellery, the Income Tax Department insisted to give the bank guarantee for the professional tax imposed and as the appellant’s FDRs equivalent to the bank guarantee amount was already there in the respondent bank and at the request of the appellant, the bank furnished the bank guarantee in favour of the Income Tax Department. It is the case of the appellant that attachment of the FDRs under Section 281 B of the Income Tax Act ceases to exist after expiry of 6 months, and therefore, the FDRs ought to have been adjusted towards the bank guarantee amount soon after the encashment of the bank guarantee, but the bank paid the bank guarantee amount in favour of the Income Tax Department, and the FDRs were adjusted against the bank guarantee amount after 6 months. That is how the appellant said to have been suffered an interest of Rs.34,870.78. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any release or discontinuance of the attachment on the FDRs, it cannot be said that the bank has to be faulted with in not adjusting the FDR amounts immediately after encashment. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not see any question of law much less a substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.ESWARAIAH,J) DATE: 21.10.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1046 OF 2011 DT.21.10.2011 GRK