CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KRISHNAJI PARVETESH KULKARNI

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KRISHNAn PARVETESH KULKARNI 
APRIL 5, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V.RA VEENDRAN,JJ.] 
B 
Government Securities: 
Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986-Rule 7(2)-Respondent misplaced! 
lost Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) purchased from Post Office-Duplicate not C 
issued by Post Office-Entitlement of Respondent to receive maturity value 
in respect of the misplaced I lost IVPs-Held, not entitled-An !VP is akin 
to an ordinary currency note which bears no name of the holder-Just as a 
lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a 
lost !VP does not arise-Besides, Rule 7(2) makes it clear that the Post Office D 
cannot replace a !VP certificate which has been lost-(Jovernment Savings 
Certificates Act, 1959. 
Respondent had purchased Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) from the Post 
Office. But he misplaced I lost the IVPs. Post Office turned down the claim of 
Respondent for duplicate IVPs on ground that there was no provision for E 
replacement of a lost IVP. Against the action of Post Office, Respondent filed 
petition before the District Consumer Forum, but the petition was dismissed. 
Thereafter, Respondent filed suit before the Civil Court which decreed in its 
favour. Revision petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court. 
In appeals to this Court the question which arose for consideration is F 
whether Respondent was entitled to receive payment of maturity value in 
respect of the misplaced I lost IVPs. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name 
of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the G 
question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas 
Patra Rules, 1986 makes it clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, 
defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any Post Office. 
Similar is the position as regards the certificate which is either lost or stolen. 
927 
H 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A Undisputedly there was no challenge to the legality of Rule 7(2). In the absence · 
of a challenge to the provision, any direction should not really have been given. 
It is fundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can be given. 
(931-C-D) 
2.1. It is, however, evident from the record that Respondent in the first 
B appeal has been paid the amount pursuant to the direction given in the suit as 
affirmed by the High Court. In the peculiar circumstances, the Respondent 
shall not be liable to refund the amount in the peculiar circumstances of the 
case. (931-E) 
2.2. So far as the second appeal is concerned, if the appellants have not 
C made the payment, they shall not be liable to make payment. But ifthe payment 
has already been made as in the case of the first appeal then no recovery 
shall be made. (931-F] 
2.3. This direction is being given in view of the statement made by the 
appellants that considering the small amount involved the appellant will not 
D claim refund, but the position in law has to be set at rest as large number of 
such claims are being made. (931-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4819 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.1998 of the High Court of 
E Karnataka at Bangalore in C.R.P. No. 2192/1996. 
F 
G 
WITH 
C.A. No. 1934/20006. 
B.B. Singh, Ravinder Agarwal, V.K. Verma, Kumar Rajesh Singh and 
P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.11387 of2003. 
These two appeals involve identical questions and are, therefore, taken 
up for disposal together. 
Challenge is to the direction given in the suit as affirmed in the order 
passed in the Civil Revision directing payment of maturity value in respect 
of Indira Vikas Patras (for short 'IVPs'). 
Undisputed position is that the respondent in each case had purchased 
H IVPs from post offices. Respondent in each case was entitled to receive 
. ~ 
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1•. KRISHNAJI PARVETESH KULKARNI [PASAYAT, J.J929 
maturity value on presentation of the certificate. In each case respondent lost A 
IVPs. In Civil Appeal No. 4819 of2000 the respondent claimed to have lodged 
a complaint at the police station about the loss of IVPs. He also informed 
about the loss of IVPs to the Postal Superintendent with the request to look 
into the matter. The Pc:;tal Superintendent informed the respondent that there
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.