Jagan R v. The Finance Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P(MD) No.18262 of 2025 Jagan.R ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Road, Chennai - 600 001.

3.The Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Kuzhithurai Branch, Kanyakumari District.

4.Sankar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent herein to defreeze the petitioner's current account vide A/c.No.67378881718 at the 3rd respondent Bank in the name and style of RRM Blue Metals, with immediate effect vide his representation, dated 07.11.2024. (The prayer suo-motu amended by this Court, vide order dated 30.07.2025.) 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saravanan For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For R3 : Mr.C.Karthik

ORDER

This Court, suo motu, amends the prayer as regard the petitioner's company as RRM Blue Metals instead of RRM Blue Metals Private Limited.

2. This Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents.

3. Taking note of the fact that the bank account of the partnership firm, namely RRM Blue Metals, has been frozen at the behest of the fourth respondent, who, though served with notice, failed to appear before the authority but has entered appearance before this Court.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there exists an inter se 2/5

dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner and a partner in RRM Blue Metals, in which the petitioner is the Managing Partner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the instructions of the fourth respondent, the third respondent has frozen the firm's bank account, thereby preventing the petitioner from servicing loans and making further payments in connection with the partnership business. It is contended that there is no justification for the fourth respondent to strangulate the business of the firm.

6. This Court finds that the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with or paralyse the business of the partnership firm merely because of a dispute with the petitioner regarding their partnership in RRM Blue Metals. It also appears that there are other partners in the said firm apart from the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Any inter se dispute among partners can only be resolved under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. 3/5

7. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the third respondent to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner-firm.

8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 30.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Indu To 1.The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Rajaji Road, Chennai - 600 001.

3.The Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Kuzhithurai Branch, 4/5

Kanyakumari District.

C.SARAVANAN, J.

Indu W.P(MD) No.18262 of 2025 30.07.2025 5/5