Karnataka High Court
Smt. Leela vs Bank Of Baroda on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.965/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. LEELA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY T V
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO.176, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
R T NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ERAPPA REDDY M, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . BANK OF BARODA
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
38, CIL MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 032
2 . THE TUMKUR MERCHANTS CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MALLESHWARAM BRANCH
NO.21, 6TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
...RESPONDENTS
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
10.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.3559/2020; TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
R.P.NO.137/2021 DATED 16.07.2021 AND TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3559/2020
as well as the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Review Petition
No.137/2021 by the learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant tries to submit that
the writ Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant had
prayed only for a writ of mandamus to consider her representation
preferred to respondent No.1/Bank. The writ petition could not
have been dismissed once there was no dispute to the amount in
her Savings Bank account maintained by respondent No.1/Bank.
It is submitted that the review petition has also been dismissed
without giving any reasons.
3. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
4. The appellant/petitioner had obtained loan from
respondent No.2 and a portion of the said amount was transferred
to her Savings Bank account maintained by respondent
No.1/Bank. Respondent No.2 had requested respondent
No.1/Bank that since the sanctioned loan has been found to be on
the basis of some fictitious documents submitted by the appellant/
petitioner, she may not be allowed to withdraw the said amount
from the Savings Bank account. It was on the basis of the request
of respondent No.2 that respondent No.1/Bank had refused the
appellant/petitioner to withdraw the amount from the Savings
Bank account.
5. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that in
view of the aforesaid facts, the relief prayed for cannot be granted
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
It is a disputed question of fact as to whether the documents
submitted by the appellant/petitioner at the time of sanction of
loan were fictitious or not which could not have been examined in
writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by the
learned Single Judge and the review petition preferred against the
same has also been rightly dismissed.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the appellant/petitioner may avail the legal remedy as
may be permissible under law and the order passed by the writ
Court and this Court shall not come in her way.
7. The pending interlocutory application does not
survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkv
