AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an original case.
HEARD Mr. P.K. Patnaik the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mrs. Madhumita Agarwal the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Central) on behalf of the Postal Authorities. It is undisputed that the complainant''s a partnership firm consisting originally of 4 partners had the KVPs and NSCs deposits as given details in the schedule total amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/- which were purchased and are still laying with the Postal Authorities after maturity. The allegation is the inaction of the Postal Authorities in not releasing the same. It is the case of the Postal Department that the amount has not been released in favour of the present appellant - Debendra Chhotray who applied for withdrawal because there arose a dispute among the partners and the Postal Authorities were in a fix as to whom they should pay as no specific authorisation was ever furnished to them for releasing the money in favour of the complainant alone.
We have heard the Counsel for the respective parties. We have perused the documents particularly the award of the Arbitrator late Justice V. Gopalswamy. The said award is found to be final and no other document and material have been placed before us by the postal authorities to indicate that the award of the Arbitrator has been under challenge in any higher and appropriate Forum. Therefore, so far the present case before us is concerned, we hold that the award has reached the finality. On going through the award we find that one of the partners Mrs. Lekha Mohanty has been held to have been expelled from the partnership. Therefore, the 3 partners who remained are the present complainant Debendra Chhotray, D.C. Patnaik and Mrs. Kabita Mohapatra. The said Kabita Mohapatra was a party before the Arbitrator. We are informed today by Mr. Patnaik that in the meantime the said Kabita Mohapatra has expired and, therefore, the two partners constitute the partnership firm.
THE present Debendra Chhotray and D.C. Patnaik two members of the partnership firm are legally competent to transact business on behalf of the partnership firm. Mr. Patnaik drew our attention to resolution of the partnership firm dated 3.5.1996 and submitted that because of the resolution the complainant has been authorised to draw the KVPs and NSCs on maturity from the Post Office. On reading the copy of the resolution in between the lines we do not find that any specific resolution to have been taken by the partners that the KVPs and NSCs should be released on maturity in favour of the complainant. It is mentioned as follows : "(b) To facilitate Bank transaction in the larger interest of the Organisation (firm) and the man power employed in it, it is further resolved that the Banks and Post Offices be intimated with the specimen signatures of all the remaining 3 partners also with copies of this resolution with instruction that any partner can jointly operate the transactions."
THIS resolution does not speak of authorising the complainant alone to release the KVPs and NSCs. But it would be legitimate for the Postal Authorities to release the KVPs and NSCs in favour of all the partners on receipt to be given by the partners and this would amount due discharge of their liability. We accordingly allow this case and direct the Postal Authorities to release the matured amount under the KVPs and NSCs details of which have been given in the complaint petition in favour of all the 3 partners signing the discharge voucher or any other appropriate receipt as the case may be. We also make it clear that all the three should also furnish indemnity bond to the amount so received by them. Since, no documents have been placed before this Commission about death of the partner Kabita Mohapatra, we direct that if the complainants produce any affidavit or any proof of death of Kabita Mohapatra to the authorities, in that case it would be competent on their part to release the amount in favour of the two surviving partners. We direct that the Postal Authorities shall pay the admissible interest under the Scheme till the respective dates of maturity i.e., 15.2.2000, 7.3.2000 and 24.4.2000. Since the complainant was forced to serve Advocates notice for release of the amount and there was no response in affirmative by the OPs we direct that the amount should bear simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e., 24.7.2000 till payment. The order be complied within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Complaint disposed of.