Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Shetty, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging two letters dated 28.11.2022 and 24.04.2023 issued by the second respondent, Karnataka Bank Ltd., which refused to permit the petitioner to withdraw fixed deposits totaling Rs.1,34,37,826/-. The petitioner had deposited the amount on different dates. The first respondent, T. Subbaya Shetty, had filed O.S.No.302/2022 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, seeking a declaration that he is the sole executor of the wills of Mrs. Geetha T. Punja and Dr. P. Thimappa Punja, and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from allowing any operation of bank accounts, release of fixed deposits, etc. The bank refused to release the fixed deposits based on a letter from the first respondent claiming to be the executor. The petitioner argued that the bank's refusal was arbitrary. The court examined the matter and held that the bank was not obliged to act on a private letter from the first respondent; the bank must act only on a court order or decree. Additionally, since a civil suit was pending between the parties on the same subject matter, the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the bank's refusal and directing the petitioner to seek appropriate orders in the pending civil suit.
Headnote
A) Banking Law - Fixed Deposit Withdrawal - Bank's Obligation - Bank is not obliged to act on a private letter from a person claiming to be executor of a will; bank must act only on a court order or decree. The petitioner sought to withdraw fixed deposits, but the bank refused citing a letter from the first respondent claiming to be executor. The court held that the bank's refusal was justified as it was not bound by private communication. (Paras 1-5) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Alternative Remedy - Civil Suit Pending - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when a civil suit is pending between the parties on the same subject matter. The petitioner had an alternative remedy of seeking appropriate orders in the pending suit. The court dismissed the petition on this ground as well. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bank's refusal to permit withdrawal of fixed deposits based on a letter from a private individual claiming to be executor of a will is valid, and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the pending civil suit.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The bank's refusal to permit withdrawal of fixed deposits was upheld. The petitioner was directed to seek appropriate orders in the pending civil suit O.S.No.302/2022.
Law Points
- Bank's duty to act only on court orders
- not private letters
- Writ jurisdiction not maintainable when civil suit pending
- No direction to bank to act on private communication
