Patna High CourtCWJC/3986/2014dismissed

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. The State Bank Of India And ORS

2016-01-21Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3986 of 2014 ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Singh Son of Sri Bijay Singh Resident of House No. 9, I.A.S. Colony, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. S.K. Nagar, District- Patna- 800001 (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Bank of India through Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai

2. The Principal Nodal Officer, General Manager (NBG Coordination), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai

3. The Regional Manager (Region-1) State Bank of India, Zonal Office, JC Road, Patna

4. The Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna

5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kankarbagh, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 21-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to operate the Current Account No. 30835484477 standing in the name of M/s. Pine Engicon Pvt. Ltd. with the State Bank of India, Kankarbagh Branch, Patna.

3. At the very outset this Court takes note that the writ petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner in his

Patna High Court CWJC No.3986 of 2014 (5) dt.21-01-2016 individual capacity, describing himself in para 3 of the writ petition as the Director of the company, M/s. Pine Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Considering that the Bank account which had been freezed stands in the name of the company, which being the main aggrieved party has itself not approached, this Court is of the view that the writ petition in the present form at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such.

4. Needless to say, the observations herein shall not stand in the way of the company in approaching this Court for the concerned relief, if so advised.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U