PPF Scheme| Restrictive Interpretation Adopted To Application Of Limit Prescribed On Yearly Deposits By Clubbing Accounts Is Incorrect: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court ruled that the restrictive interpretation adopted to the application of the limit prescribed with reference to yearly deposits by clubbing PPF accounts is incorrect.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition where the dispute is with regard to the interest accrued in three separate PPF accounts opened with the 2nd respondent-Post Office.
The bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed, “…the restrictive interpretation being adopted to the application of the limit prescribed with reference to yearly deposits by clubbing the accounts together is incorrect especially when it is admitted that the children have already attained majority at least a decade earlier…”
Senior Advocate K Anand appeared for the Appellant and CGC Jaishankar V Nair appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The 3rd Petitioner opened a PPF account with the 2nd Respondent-Post Office and also opened separate PPF accounts for her children, the 1st and 2nd Petitioners while they were minors. Even after they reached the age of majority the PPF accounts remained active, and deposits continued. The Post Office informed the Petitioner that the total deposits in the three accounts exceeded the statutory limit, and as a result, the accrued interest of Rs. 6.8L would be forfeited. Accordingly, the Post Office accrued appropriated money. The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking the re-credit of the amount, with interest, from the date of debit until re-credit.
The Court observed, “Central Government had been promoting the starting of various accounts in the name of minors and that is why such beneficial schemes were being introduced by the Central Government like the PPF Scheme, wherein separate accounts can be opened by a major in the name of his/her minor children.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings and directed the respondents to credit the amount to the accounts of the Petitioners.
Cause Title: Fareeda Sukha Rafiq v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:67986)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate K Anand, Advocates Joseph Sebastian Parackal, Latha Anand, KR Pramoth Kumar, KN Ravindran and S Vishnu Arikkattil
Respondent: CGC Jaishankar V Nair
