Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bank could refuse payment of the maturity proceeds of a fixed deposit standing in the petitioner's name on the ground that a third party had supplied the funds and whether the writ petition was maintainable to enforce repayment.
Analysis: The fixed deposit receipt was issued in the petitioner's name and the bank's obligation was therefore owed to the petitioner as depositor. Any arrangement between the petitioner and the third party from whose account the funds were routed did not alter the bank's contractual duty to repay the depositor on maturity. A nationalised bank, being subject to public law obligations, cannot withhold payment to the named depositor or credit interest to a stranger in the absence of instructions from the depositor. The matter did not require a detailed trial of disputed facts because the essential facts relevant to the bank's obligation were admitted. The existence of any separate monetary claim by the third party was a matter for independent proceedings and could not justify refusal of payment by the bank.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the bank was bound to pay the maturity value with applicable interest to the petitioner; the bank could not insist on consent from the third party.
Final Conclusion: The bank's duty to honour the fixed deposit in the depositor's name prevailed over any private dispute with a third party, and the petitioner obtained the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: A bank must repay a fixed deposit to the named depositor on maturity, and a third party's alleged funding arrangement cannot defeat that obligation in the absence of the depositor's instructions.