Dismissed

Mohamed Farook, M/49 v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC17 Sept 2021WP/7948/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a prohibitory order to restrict the operation of the second respondent's bank accounts. The court held that such relief requires prior adjudication of disputes, which cannot be done via writ proceedings, and noted the petitioner had not exhausted appeal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Mohamed Farook, M/49 Vs The Branch Manager — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NO.7948 OF 2016 AND W.M.P.NO.7077 OF 2016

¶6

Mohamed Farook.M ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Lalpet, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶9

Nazeera Kani .. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER :

¶11

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent not to permit the second respondent from operating or withdrawing or transferring any amount from the bank account numbers 6206073982, 6206406471, 6206074056, 6206406584, 6206073904, 6207029284, 6206920158, 6207029568, 6206921902, 6207029013, 6206921221 and 6206406324.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan [For R1] Mr.A.Muthukumar

¶13

[For R2]

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is direct the first respondent not to permit the second respondent from operating or withdrawing or transferring any account from the Bank Accounts Nos .6206073982, 6206406471, 6206074056, 6206406584, 6206073904, 6207029284, 6206920158, 6207029568, 6206921902, 6207029013, 6206921221 and 6206406324.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

2. The first respondent is Indian Bank and the Second respondent is a private party. In order to get such a prohibitory order for non-operation of a Bank Account, an adjudication is required with reference to the disputes if any between the parties. High Court in a writ proceedings cannot grant any such relief for the non-operation of the Bank account without adjudicating the disputes and such an adjudication cannot be undertaken in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent made a submission that the petitioner filed O.S.No.41 of 2011 for partition and the said partition suit was dismissed on 25.03.2015 and immediately, after the dismissal of the suit, he filed the present writ petition. However, he filed A.S.No.21 of 2015 and the said appeal suit was also dismissed on 07.08.2018. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶19

4. May that it be, this Court is of an opinion that the relief as such sought for is absurd and further, the petitioner has filed a appeal suit and the appeal suit is against the 2 nd respondent.

¶20

5. This being the factum, the petitioner has not established any right for the purpose of entertaining a writ and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

nti/kak

¶26

¶27

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Lalpet, Kattumannarkoil Taluk,

¶28

Cuddalore District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, Advocate, S.R.No.47791 +1cc to Mr.A.Muthukumar , Advocate, S.R.No.47702

¶30

W.P.No.7948 of 2016

¶31

PCH(CO) CS/12/10/2021

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mohamed Farook, M/49 v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Farook, M/49 v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.S.Mariappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Conybio Healthcare (India) Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Avr, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Rathinam Vs The Joint Commissioner

Tmt.Kuppa Bai Vs The Assistant Secretary

A.Mylathal, Vs The State of Tamilnadu