Dismissed¶25

Alagammal, v. The Branch Manager

Writ Petition(MD)No.30869 of 2025 – Writ of Mandamus

Madras HC31 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30869/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 maintainability — banking transaction dispute — writ of mandamus refused — release of gold jewels pledged by deceased Sivaraj, SB A/c No. 125801000018299, Indian Overseas Bank, Oddanchatram — nominee Radhika versus petitioners Alagammal and Karuppathal — representation dated 01.08.2025 — dismissed as not maintainable, no costs — Madras High Court, Madurai Bench — P.T. Asha, J. — 31.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

The dispute raised in the writ petition pertains to a banking transaction, and hence the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ¶24

Alagammal, Vs The Branch Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.30869 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 31.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.30869 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.24078 of 2025

¶8

1.Alagammal 2.Karuppathal

¶9

..Petitioners

¶10

¶11

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Oddanchatram Dindigul

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to handover the gold jewels of the deceased Sivaraj pledged by him in the Saving Bank account number A/c No.125801000018299 in the respondent's bank respectively by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Deepak Standing Counsel

¶15

1/3

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P(MD)No.30869 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to hand over the gold jewels of the deceased Sivaraj, which were pledged by him in Savings Bank Account No. 125801000018299 maintained with the respondent Bank, by considering

¶20

the petitioner’s representation dated 01.08.2025.

¶21

According to the respondent, the pledged jewels can be released

¶22

only to the nominee of the deceased account holder, and in this case, the nominee is one Radhika. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said jewels.

¶23