Rajesh Kumar Shetty, v. T Subbaya Shetty
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged the refusal of a private bank to withdraw fixed deposits via a writ petition under Article 226. The court held the petition non-maintainable as the private bank is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not discharge public duties, dismissing the writ on jurisdictional grounds.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition is rejected as it is not maintainable against the private bank.
What the court decided
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No.11940/2023(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAJESH KUMAR SHETTY, S/O GOPAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4-154 GOLLARA BETTU, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE 575015
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 1 . T. SUBBAYA SHETTY S/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT 1505, PLANET, SKS, KADRI HILLS, MANGALORE-575004.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private commercial bank.
Whether a private bank performing a commercial banking activity qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to exercise writ power against a private bank not discharging statutory or public duty.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajesh Kumar Shetty
- respondent
T. Subbaya Shetty
- respondent
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/11940/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court