Court orders Nationalised Bank to repay fixed deposit with interest to petitioner establishing Banker-customer relationship.

The court held that the public sector Nationalised Bank must pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the petitioner as the Bank issued the receipt in the petitioner's name, establishing a Banker-customer relationship. The court found the Bank's requirement for consent from a third party unnecessary and ordered the Bank to repay the fixed deposit amount with interest to the petitioner. The writ petition was deemed maintainable under Article 226, and the court directed the Bank to comply within two weeks, setting aside the Ombudsman's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Can a public sector Nationalised Bank refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the holder of the deposit without consent from the person whose account was debited to open the fixed depositRs.
2. Is there a Banker-customer relationship between the Bank and the petitionerRs.
3. Is the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of factRs.
4. Does the Bank owe a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitionerRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Can a public sector Nationalised Bank refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the holder of the deposit without consent from the person whose account was debited to open the fixed depositRs.
The court addressed whether the Bank could refuse to pay the proceeds of a fixed deposit to the petitioner on the grounds that consent was required from the 5th respondent, whose account was debited to open the fixed deposit. The Bank's stance was that there was no Banker-customer relationship with the petitioner and that the fixed deposit was opened as per the instructions of the 5th respondent. The court found this position untenable, stating that the Bank, having issued the fixed deposit receipt in the name of the petitioner, was bound to repay the amount with accrued interest to the petitioner. The Bank's requirement for consent from the 5th respondent was deemed unnecessary and legally unsound.

2. Is there a Banker-customer relationship between the Bank and the petitionerRs.
The court confirmed that a Banker-customer relationship existed between the Bank and the petitioner. The fixed deposit receipt was in the name of the petitioner, establishing a debtor-creditor relationship between the Bank and the petitioner. The court emphasized that the contract was solely between the Bank and the petitioner, and any agreement between the petitioner and the 5th respondent did not affect this relationship.

3. Is the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of factRs.
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226, even in cases involving contractual disputes with disputed questions of fact, provided the basic facts required to grant relief were admitted. The court cited precedents where writ petitions were entertained in similar circumstances, especially when the actions of the State or its instrumentalities were found to be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary. The court found that the necessary facts for deciding the writ petition were admitted, and thus, the petition was maintainable.

4. Does the Bank owe a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitionerRs.
The court ruled that the Bank, being a public sector Nationalised Bank, owed a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner. The Bank's refusal to pay the proceeds of the fixed deposit to the petitioner without the consent of the 5th respondent was found to be unjust and unreasonable. The court emphasized that the Bank could not transfer any funds accruing to the fixed deposit to any stranger without specific instructions from the petitioner. The court directed the Bank to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit with applicable interest to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Bank to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit with applicable interest to the petitioner within two weeks. The court set aside the order of the Ombudsman and clarified that the direction was without prejudice to the rights of the 5th respondent to pursue any claims against the petitioner and the Bank's right to recover amounts transferred as interest to the 5th respondent. The court also affirmed that the Bank owed a public duty to repay the fixed deposit amount to the petitioner, and the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---