Dismissed¶28

Mrs. Kumudha, v. the Union Bank

Madras HC28 Jan 2026WP/2103/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; P.T. Asha; W.P.No.2103 of 2026; Article 226; Section 226; writ of mandamus; maintainability of writ petition; private contractual right; bank locker access; Locker No. 1; Union Bank of India; Angalakuruchi Branch Coimbatore; deficient service proper forum; prerogative writs extraordinary remedies; Rashid Ahmed Municipal Board Kairana AIR 1950 SC 163; Nain Sukh Das State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 384; dismissal no costs.

What did the court decide?

A private contractual right cannot be ventilated through a writ petition under Article 226; the petitioner's remedy regarding access to the locker lies elsewhere and not in this writ petition. ¶20

Mrs. Kumudha, Vs the Union Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 will lie to compel the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to independently access and operate Locker No. 1 without insisting on the consent or presence of her husband, i.e., whether a private contractual right can be enforced through writ jurisdiction.

¶20

Court's answer

A private contractual right cannot be ventilated through a writ petition under Article 226; the petitioner's remedy regarding access to the locker lies elsewhere and not in this writ petition.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

If the Bank has rendered deficient service the petitioner ought to approach the proper forum and not invoke the writ jurisdiction, since the relationship between the petitioner and the Bank is purely contractual.

¶27

Key takeaways

Observing that the writ remedy is now treated as a panacea for all legal problems, with ordinary remedies brushed aside and mandamus sought against public authorities and banks for contractual obligations for which civil remedies exist, the Courts being inundated with such litigation.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to the Union Bank of India (Angalakuruchi Branch, Coimbatore District) to permit the petitioner to independently access and operate Locker No. 1 without insistence on her husband's consent or presence — dismissed. Held, per P.T. Asha, J.: the petitioner sought to ventilate a private contractual right through writ jurisdiction; the relationship between the petitioner and the Bank is purely contractual, and if the Bank had rendered deficient service the petitioner ought to approach the proper forum rather than invoke the writ jurisdiction. Relying on Rashid Ahmed vs. Municipal Board Kairana (AIR 1950 SC 163) and Nain Sukh Das vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 384), the Court noted that prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies meant for exceptional cases where ordinary legal remedies are inadequate, and observed in passing that the writ remedy is now being treated as a panacea for all legal problems, including banks' contractual obligations for which civil remedies are available. Dismissed with no costs (28.01.2026).

¶1

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 28.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 2103 of 2026

Kumudha

...petitioner

Vs.

The Union Bank of India Rep by its Branch Manager Angalakuruchi Branch, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to independently access and operate the Locker No. 1 at the respondent Bank without insisting the consent or presence of the petitioner’s husband.

¶13

: For petitioner Mr. G.Selvi George

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶19

“To direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to independently access and operate the Locker No. 1 at the respondent Bank without insisting the consent or presence of the petitioner’s husband. ”

¶20

A private contractual right is sought to be ventilated through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that she has not given access to the locker which is operated by her husband in the respondent bank. The remedy available to the petitioner is elsewhere and not by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

In the judgements as way back in Rashid Ahmed Vs.

¶22

Municipal Board Kairana – AIR 1950 SC 163 and Nain Sukh Das Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – AIR 1953 SC 384, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies intended to be applied in exceptional cases in which the ordinary legal

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶26

remedies are not adequate.

¶27

However, now the writ remedy is the panache for all legal problems and ordinary legal remedies are being brushed aside and petitions couched as a writ of mandamus are sought to be issued to public authorities to do acts / discharge functions for which they have no powers, to banks for carrying out their contractual obligations for which a civil remedy is available and private parties to enforce private rights. The Courts are being inundated with such litigations. The case on hand relates to accessing a bank locker. If the Bank has rendered deficient service the petitioner ought to approach the proper forum and not invoke the writ jurisdiction. The relationship between the petitioner and the Bank is purely contractual.

¶28

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶29

28.01.2026

¶30

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶34

¶35

The Union Bank of India Rep by its Branch Manager Angalakuruchi Branch, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶39

P.T. ASHA, J

¶40

kan

¶41

W.P.No.2103 of 2026

¶42

28.01.2026

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

Mrs. Kumudha, v. the Union Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Kumudha, v. the Union Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Thirumalai Vs the District Collector

M/S. Nethra Enterprises Vs the Union of India

K.Chandrakanthan Vs the Tamil Nadu Government

Meganathan Vs The Dean

Perumal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G. Nehru Alias kuppusamy, Mla Vs The Election Commission of India