Case Comment: Anumati vs Punjab National Bank


In India, commercial banks offer Fixed Deposit (“FD”) accounts to customers, which are often created in the joint names of two persons, payable to either of them or to the survivor among them.

The issue in the present case arose out of a special leave petition against the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and it pertained to the pledge of a joint FD Receipt. In this case, the Appellant and her husband Mam Chand were joint holders of a FD account with the Respondent. Mam Chand pledged the FDR to the Respondent against a loan. Upon default of Mam Chand to repay the loan, the bank had exercised its right of set-off on this account claiming that as a joint holder, the Appellant’s consent for the same was not required as the FD account was created on the principle of payment to ‘either-or-survivor’ basis.

Punjab National Bank

Decision of the court

The court discussed the following principles 

  1. A joint holder does not become automatically authorised to pledge the amount in the account.
  2. A FD created in the joint names of two holders is a joint account which is repayable on the expiry of the specified period.
  3. The FDR being a written acknowledgment by the bank that it holds a certain sum for the use of its customers, the bank is a debtor to the account holders.
  4. An ‘either or survivor’ clause in a joint FD account is a tripartite agreement, whereby the amount payable on maturity of the FD may be paid by the bank to either holder (for it to be a valid discharge). It cannot be bilaterally modified by one holder and the bank, without the consent of the other holder.

Decision in relation to the existing law

  1. A FD created in the joint names of two persons is a joint account of the two persons and the amount is to be repaid on expiry of a fixed period. When the FD has an ‘either or survivor’ clause for a joint account, variation in the terms of the FD can be made only under the joint signature of the holders.
  2. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides that a bank has the right of set-off against a debtor. Set-off is a mutual debt, which is due to and from the same parties in the form of a cross claim for a specific amount.[1]  If there is a mutual demand between the bank and customer, a bank can apply the money of the customer in its possession.[2] The Patna High Court in Radha Raman Chaudhary v Chota Nagpur Banking Association Ltd[3] held that for set-off, bankers have the right to combine monies from accounts of the same customer, but they cannot combine a customer’s personal account with his joint account.[4]
  3. Under section 172 of the Contract Act, a pledge is a bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise. A pledge by a co-owner of the goods is valid only with the assent of all other co-owners. If a loan is sought by one of the joint holders, before the date of maturity of the FD, the bank must require that the loan application be signed by the other holders as well, or that a letter of no objection to the loan be taken from them.[5]
  4. An FD is repayable on the expiry of the fixed period, which is chosen by the depositor/holder to suit his purpose and to enable him to receive money when he needs it. The terms and conditions of the FD were for payment of the interest and principal amount to the joint account holders. There is a clear distinction between payment of interest or repayment and the right of either holder to pledge the fixed deposit with another person or the bank.

Justification of its decision by the court

The court considered two main issues

  1. Whether a jointly owned FD account can be pledged by one of the holders with the bank?
  2. Whether the bank can apply the FD amount towards such pledge without the authority of the other joint holder?

The court cited Tannan[6] to find that any variation in terms of a joint account can be effected only upon joint signatures of all joint holders, and one joint holder cannot ask the bank to issue premature repayment or a loan against the FD. It also cited a decision of the Calcutta High Court (Nath Bank Ltd v Sisir Kumar Sarkar)[7], where during the joint lives of the holders, or till the bank demanded repayment of loan amount from the debtor holder, a joint FD was a ‘debt owed by the bank to the holders’, and it could not set-off the FD against a debt due from one of the holders.

Possible policy implication of the decision

  1. Services rendered by a bank are within the ambit of services as defined under section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (‘CPA’), and account holders are consumers availing of banking services for consideration. Accepting a pledge of a joint FD account without the consent of all holders, and withholding release of amount due on an FD upon its maturity would constitute deficiency in the service which has been undertaken to be performed by the bank under the FDR (contract between the bank and customer), under section 2(11) of the CPA 2019.[8]
  2. Terms of operation of FD accounts are governed by the terms of the FD, and relevant rules of the Reserve Bank of India in this regard. The RBI has notified that banks can allow premature withdrawal of an FD by the surviving joint holder on the death of the other, only if there is a joint mandate from the joint holders.[9] This points to the recognition by the RBI of the principle of joint instruction by all holders.
  3. In its notification on the repayment of Term Deposits[10], the RBI views the insistence on the signatures of both the depositors as a defeat of the ‘either-or-survivor’ mandate, which results in unjustified delays. The RBI has not specified the policy on requirement of authorisation by all joint holders for pledge of an FDR, although it can be derived that, as a pawnee, a bank can set-off a debt from the individual account of the debtor holder, so as to not affect the right of the joint holder.


The Supreme Court settled the position of law that since a bank is a debtor with respect to the joint FD account, it cannot set-off a debt due from one customer against such a joint ‘debt’ account. The reasoning of the court was logical as it considered the fact that Mam Chand’s right to receive the FD amount upon maturity was limited to him being survived by the Appellant, who would then be solely entitled to receive the amount, and this right could not be taken away without her consent.

Author: : Vipasha Chirmulay, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.


  1. M.L Tannan, Banking Law and Practice in India, (Lexis Nexis, 28th Ed. 2021)
  2. R.N Chaudhary, Banking Laws, (Central Law Publications, 4th Ed. 2016)
  3. Consumer Cases on Banking, Reserve Bank of India, available at
  4. Repayment of Term/Fixed Deposits in banks (2011), available at

[1] M.L Tannan, Banking Law and Practice in India, (Lexis Nexis, 28th Ed. 2021)

[2] M.L Tannan, Banking Law and Practice in India, (Lexis Nexis, 28th Ed. 2021)

[3] (1945) 15 Comp. Case 4

[4] M.L Tannan, Banking Law and Practice in India, (Lexis Nexis, 28th Ed. 2021)

[5] R.N Chaudhary, Banking Laws, (Central Law Publications, 4th Ed. 2016)

[6] Paragraph 12, Anumati v Punjab National Bank

[7] Paragraph 14, Anumati v Punjab National Bank

[8] Consumer Cases on Banking, Reserve Bank of India,   last seen 17/10/22

[9] Premature Repayment of Term/Fixed Deposits in banks with “Either or Survivor”or “Former or Survivor” mandate – Clarification (2012), available at

[10] Repayment of Term/Fixed Deposits in banks (2011), available at  last seen 18/10/22

Leave a Reply


  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010