Disposed
Purnima Mukherjee v. Bank of India and Ors.
Calcutta HCWPA/7591/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.09 26.08.2022 TN WPA No. 7591 of 2022…
What the court decided
AI extract
No.09 26.08.2022 TN WPA No. 7591 of 2022…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AD-11 Ct No.09 26.08.2022 TN
WPA No. 7591 of 2022 Purnima Mukherjee Vs. Bank of India and others
Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghose, Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury
…. for the petitioner
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record. None appears for the Bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although a criminal proceeding was taken out against the partner of the petitioner in business in respect of an allegation of defalcation of an amount and the said partner subsequently got enlarged on bail, there was no proceeding initiated at any point of time against the present petitioner.
However, it is submitted that the petitioner, as a joint account holder and partner of the accused in the criminal case, is not being permitted to operate their joint bank account, thereby causing detriment to the business of the petitioner.
Accordingly, a representation was given on February 22, 2022, which is annexed at page 30 (Annexure P4) of the writ petition.
2
In view of the innocuous nature of the prayer, further service on the Bank is not directed.
Accordingly, WPA No. 7591 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the respondent no.1, that is, the Bank of India, more specifically, the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Chittaranjan Branch (respondent no.3 herein) to give a hearing to the petitioner and decide on her demand justice dated February 22, 2022, as annexed at page 30 of the writ petition, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, positively within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the respondent no.3.
The parties shall act on the written communication by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, coupled with a server copy of this order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
Purnima Mukherjee
Bank of India
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court