- (1.) THE Court: By this application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: " (a) Leave be given to the petitioner to make this application. (b) An order be passed directing the State Bank of India, Rash Behari Avenue branch to renew 20 fixed deposit receipts particular thereof are set out in table 'c' annexed hereto cumulatively for the periods form 1991 till 2002 as it had done for the periods from 2002 to 2005 as shown in the table 'c' annexed hereto. (c) Order be passed against State Bank of India, Grey Street Extension branch regarding 12 fixed deposit receipts details whereof are set out in table 'g' annexed hereto directing the said branch to renew all the fixed deposit receipts on a cumulative basis till March 18, 2005 as shown in the table marked 'g'. (d) Order to be passed directing the Branch Manager of Grey Street Extension branch of State Bank of India to renew the said fixed deposits on quarterly payable interest basis in terms of the order dated 18th March, 2005 passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court in CPAN No. 371 of 2004. (e) Such further order or orders as to this Honb'le Court may deem fit and proper. (f) Costs. (h) Any other writ or writs, order or orders and direction or directions, as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper. "
(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of this application may be precised thus: (1) By a declaration of trust, dated June 17, 1950, executed and registered on June 21, 1950 by one Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi, since deceased, a public and religious trust known as "debi Kamal Trust Estate" was created. The said Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi was the" sole trustee from its inception until her death in the year 1970. (2) After the death of the said Sm. Shakti Sudha Devi, her two sons, viz. Kesab Narayan (the petitioner) and Kamal Narayan (since deceased) became the trustees and in terms of the deed of trust, Keshab Narayan became the managing trustee for the first five years since 1970. (3) In the year 1975, Kamal Narayan relinquished the office of trustee by a registered document and since then, the petitioner has been functioning as the sole and managing trustee of the estate. (4) There was a search and seizure by the income-tax department as a result of which receipts of the various fixed deposits were seized by the Income tax Authorities. The petitioner, as a trustee of the Trust Estate, claimed that all these fixed deposits belonged to the trust. The Income Tax authorities, however, had investigated the matter and ultimately, was satisfied that those were not part of any undisclosed income of the trust; and the proceedings ended in favour of the Trust holding that those were part of the disclosed the income of the trust. (5) In spite of such a situation, the seized documents were not returned, as a result, several writ applications were filed on behalf of the trust. Ultimately, by an order passed by this Court, the Income Tax Authority was directed to consider the question of release of those seized documents in accordance with law. Pursuant to such order dated February 27, 2003 passed in FMA no. 245 of 2001 arising out of CR No. 10194 (W) of 1981, the Income Tax department released all those documents. (6) Admittedly, those documents were seized about 30 years ago and during the whole period, no one had lodged any claim in respect of any of those fixed deposits. At the same time, interests were being released in favour of the trust. The Income Tax Authority, as mentioned above, found that those fixed deposits were made out of the disclosed income of the trust and that those were shown in the return of the Trust and reflected in its accounts all through. (7) In the past, on the allegation that the banks refused to release the interest accruing from those accounts in favour of the trust, three different applications for contempt were filed and those were disposed of by an order dated March 18, 2005 by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms: "in the circumstances, we direct each of the banks to renew the respective fixed deposits in the name of the trust retaining the identification of each of the deposits by mentioning the names in whose names such deposits were and are standing at the time of renewal in terms of this order. The period of such a renewal shall be for a period of three years from the date of the respective renewals. The trust and the applicant, Keshab Narayan Banerjee, shall be restrained from encashing or in any way dealing with any of these fixed deposits, though, however, the trust would continue to receive the interests accrued on the above fixed deposits. On account of disbursement of interest to the trust the property situated at 7, Queen's Park, Calcutta-700 019, belonging to the trust, to the extent of the amount of interest so disbursed, shall remain charged for a period of three years without affecting the title of the trust in respect of the said property. The trustees or the present trustees of the trust, including Sri Keshab Narayan Banerjee, shall also furnish separate indemnity bond to each of the respective banks for indemnifying such banks from any loss arising out of any future the claim lodged by any of the parties in whose names the respective fixed deposits were standing for a period of three years commencing from the date of this judgment. In case no claim is made or lodged within the aforesaid period of three years, then and in that event, these fixed deposits shall be free. The above renewals shall be made within a period of one month from the date the trust makes respective applications for the respective renewals of the respective fixed deposits. In case the respective banks are dragged into and involved in any litigation, the trust and the trustees shall defend the same at its own cost taking the liability upon it, keeping the bank concerned indemnified of all claims and the cost of all such litigations. " (8) It may not be out of place to mention here that in the writ application out of which the mandamus-appeal arose, D. K. Sen, J. on July 10, 1984, inter alia, passed the following direction: "the respondent Income-tax Authorities are directed to make over the fixed deposit receipts mentioned in the schedules 'e 1 to E 9' to the Managers of the respective branches of the respondent-banks referred to in the schedules; upon production of the said fixed deposit receipts the respondent-Banks are directed to renew the same for a period of 63 months from their respective dates of maturity together with accrued interest and keep the receipts of the renewed deposits in their custody subj ect to further orders of this Court".
(3.) IN this application, it is alleged that there are altogether 36 fixed deposit receipts with the Rash Behari Avenue Branch of the State Bank of India. In case of 16 such deposits, the State Bank of India had paid cumulative interest all throughout the period. However, in respect of the other 20 fixed deposits, only a simple interest has been paid between the year, 1991 and 2002 and thereafter, on the cumulative basis for the period from the years 2002 to 2005. So far the transaction with the State Bank of India, Grey Street Extension branch is concerned, there are altogether 12 fixed deposit receipts. According to the petitioner, the said branch, in total disregard of the order dated July 10, 1984 mentioned above, has paid only simple interest all throughout. This branch, apart from committing the aforesaid violation of the order, is not paying quarterly interests in respect of these 12 fixed deposit receipts in contrast with the Rash Behari Avenue Branch which has paid quarterly interest in June, 2005, taking March 18, 2005, as the date of commencement of the deposit having regard to the date on which the order was passed by this Court while disposing of the earlier applications for contempt. According to the petitioner, the said grey Street Extension Branch has also violated the order dated March 18, 2005 by renewing four out of the said 12 fixed deposit receipts on cumulative basis thereby denying regular interest to the petitioner as per direction of this court.;