T.Ashok Surana v. The Authorised Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN W.P. No.31480 of 2017 T. Ashok Surana Petitioner /Party in person vs.

The Authorised Officer Indian Bank ARMB 1 Branch 55, Ethiraj Salai Egmore, Chennai 600 008 Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent bank to pursue any further recovery proceedings by the application of the rule of res judicata to prevent miscarriage of justice by misleading this Court in a batch of cases of an appeal having been filed against the decision dismissing the condone delay petition filed by the respondent bank in M.A. No.186/2014 in RASR No.6411 of 2014 in S.A. No.73/2011, having attained finality.

For petitioner Mr. T. Ashok Surana - Party in person For respondent Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.N. PRAKASH, J.) This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:

"a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent bank to pursue any further recovery proceedings by the application of the rule of res judicata to prevent miscarriage of justice by misleading this Court in a batch of cases of an appeal having been filed against the decision dismissing the condone delay petition filed by the respondent bank in M.A. No.186/2014 in RASR No.6411 of 2014 in S.A. No.73/2011, having attained finality."

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Heard the petitioner who appeared as party in person and Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Indian Bank.

The petitioner contended that in every proceedings initiated by him against Indian Bank, the latter is making false representations before various fora and therefore, they should be prevented from pursuing such a course.

In the opinion of this Court, the prayer as framed itself is not maintainable and it is beyond the ken of this Court as to how the Registry numbered this writ petition. Under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, no Court can restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a Court not subordinate to that from which injunction is sought. Every person is entitled to seek appropriate relief from a Court of law and whether he is entitled to the relief or not is an issue that has to be determined by the Court at the culmination of the proceedings.

In such perspective of the matter, the writ of prohibition as sought by the petitioner against the respondent bank cannot be granted.

In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, however, sans costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar cad To The Authorised Officer Indian Bank ARMB 1 Branch 55, Ethiraj Salai Egmore Chennai 600 008 +1 CC to M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate sr 76162. W.P. No.31480 of 2017 SP(03/12/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/