The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to restrain a bank from proceeding with proceeds of a fixed deposit. The court held the petition was premature as the civil court was already seized of the matter regarding the will.
Demand for restraint on bank payment noted as premature; petition dismissed.
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.
WPMS No. 525 of 2013 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate for respondent No.1.
In my view, at this stage, the writ petition is premature to entertain, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the following reasons :-
The petitioner, in this matter, wants to restrain the Bank from making any payment in relation to the proceeds of fixed deposit. The father was having a joint account with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Father executed a will and the validity and legality of the will is questioned before Civil Court. The petitioner has already obtained interim order of status quo in relation to movable and immovable property left by his father. I think when the Civil Court is in seisin of the matter, I do not think writ court will interfere. Since the order of status quo is in operation, obviously, Bank will take note of the status quo and act in accordance with law as may be advised.
(K.J. Sengupta, J.)
Dated 18.03.2013 Shiv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writ court can interfere when a civil court is already seized of the matter regarding the will.
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Jain
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
