Division Bench Sets Aside Single Judge Order and Relegates Dispute Over Long‑lost Fixed Deposits to Civil Court

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. heard writ appeals filed by Punjab National Bank and another against a common Single Judge judgment dated 20.12.2024 which had directed payment of amounts allegedly covered by long‑matured fixed deposit receipts. The appeals arose from two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the banks’ refusal to release sums claimed by persons who produced old fixed deposit receipts said to belong to the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank and Bank of Baroda.

The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and held that the dispute presented primarily contested questions of fact which could not be resolved in a writ proceeding. The Bench observed that the banks contended that there were no corresponding ledgers or records and that some deposits were not taken over at the time of amalgamation, while the petitioners relied on the recovered receipts and inventory entries. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “When the petitioners say that the fixed deposits made by them in the erstwhile Nedungadi bank, which was later amalgamated with Punjab National Bank and also in Bank of Baroda, were not repaid to them, the respective banks are taking a stand that they have no document with them which shows that such deposits were made by the petitioners. ... From the rival submissions made at the Bar and from the pleadings, it is clear that the dispute pertaining to the fixed deposits raised in these writ petitions are question of fact which needs the adducing of evidence to arrive at a just decision on the point. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided as done in the impugned judgment. The remedy open to the petitioners is before the civil Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.”

Background

The litigation traced to fixed deposits allegedly created in 1995–1996 in the name of members of a family with the Nedungadi Bank, Guruvayoor branch (later amalgamated into Punjab National Bank), and two small deposits with Bank of Baroda. The deposits matured in the 1990s and were not claimed until the locker containing the original receipts was opened in 2018. Petitioners approached the Punjab National Bank in 2019 for release; the bank denied liability on the ground that the deposits either were not reflected in records taken over in 2003 or the records could not be traced. The Single Judge accepted the petitioners’ version as “more probable”, directed the banks to disburse proceeds to the family members within eight weeks and required execution of undertakings/indemnity bonds.

On appeal the Division Bench recorded that the banks had explained searches in data centres, archives and ledgers and, in some instances, that deposits of the period could have been closed earlier on indemnity bonds. The Bench reiterated established law that Article 226 is not a substitute for adjudication of disputed factual questions and relied on precedents to the same effect. The Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment, without deciding the merits, and relegated parties to the civil court; it granted the writ petitioners liberty to institute a civil suit within 15 days from receipt of the copy of the judgment. The Court also made clear that sums already deposited in Court and withdrawn by the petitioners pursuant to earlier interim orders — notably an amount of Rs.10,08,051.39 deposited by the bank and permitted to be withdrawn under protest — remained subject to the determination of the civil proceedings and to any future orders of that court. The Bench did not express on the substantive allegations and left procedural and evidentiary resolution to the competent civil forum.

Case Details:
Case No.: WA No.287 of 2025 & WA No.352 of 2025
Case Title: WA No.287 of 2025: Punjab National Bank v. Archana Menon G. & Ors.; WA No.352 of 2025: Punjab National Bank v. Ashwin Kumar T.G.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Adv. Shri Santheep Ankarath, Senior Counsel (for Punjab National Bank)
For the Respondent(s): Adv. Sri Dinesh R. Shenoy (for certain respondents in WA No.287 of 2025); Adv. Sri N.K. Mohanlal (for respondent in WA No.352 of 2025)