Petitioners granted oversight of respondent's office transactions on Saturdays under settlement agreement The court allowed petitioners representing depositors to oversee transactions at the 6th respondent's office every Saturday afternoon as per the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Petitioners granted oversight of respondent's office transactions on Saturdays under settlement agreement
The court allowed petitioners representing depositors to oversee transactions at the 6th respondent's office every Saturday afternoon as per the settlement agreement. Police were directed to intervene only if necessary, ensuring law and order. The writ petition seeking police protection was disposed of following the agreement for amicable settlement and repayment by respondents 6 and 7.
Issues involved: Alleged unauthorized banking transactions, receipt of deposits without proper license, petition for police protection, agreement for settlement of disputes, permission to oversee transactions.
Unauthorized Banking Transactions: Petitioners alleged that respondents 5 to 7 were receiving deposits without proper license, promising high interest rates. A society was formed to secure the interests of depositors. The 6th respondent was functioning under S.N.D.P. Yogam, and respondents 6 and 7 were following rules set by the 5th respondent. Lack of action post allegations led to loss of public faith.
Petition for Police Protection: A writ petition was filed seeking police protection due to threats faced by respondents 6 and 7. The court directed police to ensure safety of the petitioners and their family members, maintaining law and order.
Settlement Agreement: An agreement (Ext.P8) was reached for amicable settlement and repayment of amounts by respondents 6 and 7. Petitioners were allowed to oversee transactions at the Sangham Office to build confidence among depositors.
Counter Affidavits: The 5th respondent denied involvement in deposit transactions, stating they were solely between respondents 6 and 7. Respondents 6 and 7 admitted receiving deposits but faced difficulties in immediate repayment. They agreed to the terms of Ext.P8 and allowed petitioners to visit the office for implementation.
Court Decision: Parties agreed that petitioners representing depositors could visit the 6th respondent's office as per Ext.P8 agreement every Saturday afternoon, without causing law and order issues. Police would intervene only if necessary. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
