The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to operate a partnership bank account. The Court held that such disputes require remedy in the Suit Court where the partnership dispute is already pending, not in writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy in the Suit Court.
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.
$~29
DAULAT RAM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Roopanwal and Ms. Sudarshina Rathor, Advs.
Versus
M/S IDBI BANK LTD. & ANR ..... Respondents Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
% 11.03.2016
W.P.(C) 2111/2016
Page 1 of 2
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MARCH 11, 2016 bs..
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(C) 2111/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus to a bank to allow a petitioner to operate a partnership account when there are pending inter se disputes between the partners.
Whether partnership disputes involving account access are maintainable as writ petitions or require civil suit jurisdiction.
DAULAT RAM
M/S IDBI BANK LTD.
M/S SAPNA DEVI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
