This writ petition involved a dispute where the petitioner alleged that a fixed deposit amount remained unwithdrawn despite the bank's counter. The Court held that this factual dispute precludes a writ remedy and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit or criminal case.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2472 of 2012
Suraj Prakash … Petitioner
Vs
State Bank of India & another … Respondents
Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate, present for respondent No. 1.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu, J. (Oral)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
28.12.2013
Aswal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantification of a fixed deposit amount should be determined by this Court in a writ petition when there is a factual dispute.
Whether the petitioner is required to file a civil suit or criminal case to resolve the dispute regarding withdrawal of funds.
Suraj Prakash
State Bank of India
Sudhanshu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
