Punjab National Bank vs BIMLA KATYAL

THE District Forum, Chandigarh held that the Punjab National Bank could not withhold payment in case of a joint Time Deposit Receipt which was in the name of Smt. Bimla Katyal and her son Vinod Katyal notwithstanding the fact that Vinod Katyal is now a debtor qua the aforesaid Bank against whom loan is outstanding. Aggrieved against this order of 26.8.94, the Punjab National Bank, Sector 28, Chandigarh, has attempted the present appeal.

SMT. Bimla Katyal originally deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- on 10.4.85 against a TDR which was to mature on 10.4.90. She also mentioned the name of Vinod Katyal, her son, as a codepositor, probably keeping in view that in case of her death, the amount shall be collected by her son without technical formalities. When it was renewed on 10.4.90, the Bank authorities brought the name of Vinod Katyal at the top and the name of his mother Bimla Katyal subsequent thereto. This change was made probably as a safeguard because meanwhile Vinod Katyal obtained a loan of Rs. 25,0007/- under the self-employment scheme from the aforesaid Bank. A suit for recovery in respect of the loan was instituted separately by the Bank and there was a decree from the Civil Court. The Bank planned recovery through the aforesaid TDR. A few important pleas taken up in the complaint inter-alia were as under: "(i) The aforesaid FDR was willfully and with mala fide intention marked "Under Lien" when it was presented by Haryana Cooperative Bank, Panchkula, against the loan outstanding in the name of my son. (ii) Further when protracted correspondence was made by me to the higher authorities/press, the PNB-28 renewed the TDR but changed the style from Bimla Katyal & Sh. Vinod Katyal to Vinod Katyal & Bimla Katyal (copy enclosed. (iii) I am too old to do any work. So this was the only saving with me which is absolutely necessary to sustain my life. By denying the payment, the PNB is not doing justice. (iv) Again on 13.6.91, I went to PNB and presented the renewed TDR No 524324 dated 21.2.91 for Rs. 39,571.50 for payment but it was neither paid to me nor any reason was assigned."

We find that since this TDR was either or survivor (Annexure A-3 dated 21.2.91), there was no bar for Smt Bimla Katyal, the mother, to claim the entire amount from the Bank together with interest notwithstanding the fact that this TDR was utilised in securing the loan by her son under the self-employment scheme. There is no evidence that Smt. Bimla Katyal relinquished her right in the TDR. We uphold the findings of the District Forum that the Bank committed deficiency by declining payment of the amount of the TDR and interest accrued thereupon to Smt. Bimla Katyal who was fully competent to withdraw the entire amount with interest.

ON behalf of the appellant, our attention has been invited to Simla Banking and Industrial Company Limited, Ambala City v. Mst. Bhagwan Kaur, AIR 1928 Lahore 316, wherein it was held that in case of joint FDR, the Bank could not appropriate the money to recover the debt due against one of the two depositors and it was observed that the Bank had no "general lien". Any authority to contrary has not been brought to our notice. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the order passed in Civil Revision No. 3966 of 1995 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the objections raised in execution proceedings by the Punjab National Bank against Smt. Bimla Katyal have been dismissed on 10.1.97. After considering the facts and circumstances referred to above there appears to be no merit in this appeal attempted by the Punjab National Bank and it is hereby dismissed.

ANNOUNCED. Copies of order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.