Dismissed

Niranjan Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Mar 2016WP(C)/22002/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held a writ petition filed by depositors against a limited company for refund of matured money as not maintainable under Article 226. The Court observed that the appropriate remedy lies in the civil forum and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach such forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum in accordance with law.

The petitioners file this application seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to take effective steps for refund of their invested money within a reasonable time and furth er if opposite party no.6 will not refund the amount, legal action should be taken against the said opposite party for the said payment.

Mr. M.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners states that for the selfsame relief, the petitioners have approached the apex Court by filing W.P. (Civil) No. 401 of 2013 with connected matters, which has been dismissed with liberty to seek such redress before the appropriate court as may be permissible in accordance with law. It is stated that the sole con tention of the petitioners is that the amount having been deposited before opposite party no.6 , they want refund of that amount and in the event opposite party no.6 does not refund the sai d amount, necessary action shall be taken against the said opposite party for ensuring refund of the amount deposited by the petitioners.

Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel raises preliminary objection with regar d to maintainability of the writ petition stating inter alia that opposite party no.6 being a limited company, the petitioners have the remedy to approach the appropriate forum in accordan ce with law for realization of the same. Instead of approaching the appropriate forum, the pet itioners have approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that opposite party no.6 is a limited company before whom the petitioners have deposited their money, which they are entitled to get after its maturity, but unfortunately they have been deprived of getting the same. Therefore, remedy lies to approach the appropriate forum ventilating their grievance in accordance with law instead of approachi ng this Court by filing the present writ petition.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petiti on is not maintainable before this Court. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to ap proach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Niranjan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Das v. State of Odisha

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

Pradip Vs O.S.I.C.

Osec Vs Grid Corpn

Sarat Ch Rout Vs State of Odisha

Gurudayal Singh Vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd,Kolkata

Mayurbhanj D.R.D.A. Vs State of Orissa

Pabitra Swain Vs State of Orissa