Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S. Manthiram Vs. The General Manager, Reserve bank of India, Chennai and Another

S. Manthiram vs The General Manager, Reserve bank of India, Chennai and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 26, 2015
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179326

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition (MD) No. 19250 of 2014
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Manthiram

Respondent

The General Manager, Reserve bank of India, Chennai and Another

Excerpt

.....and therefore, the same have to be returned to him, after receiving the necessary amount from him. since the same are not returned, he has come forward with this writ petition with the prayer as stated supra. 3. on the other hand, it is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent that the petitioner has not pledged eight bungles and he pledged only six bungles and one bracelet and therefore, he cannot seek for return of eight bungles, as sought for in this writ petition. 4. according to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent bank, the other two bungles which were already lying in the weighing machine belong to one subbulakshmi and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim those two bungles also as that of himself. 5. undoubtedly, these rival contentions with disputed facts are not for this court to consider and decide by exercising its power under article 226 of the constitution of india, as those disputed question of facts have to be agitated only before the competent civil forum by letting in evidence. therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by the respective parties, however, by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action against the second respondentto return back the eight bangles and one bracelet and on the same day receive the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.)

1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action against the second respondent and to return back the eight bangles and one bracelet belonging to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he pledged eight bungles and one bracelet with the second respondent bank and therefore, the same have to be returned to him, after receiving the necessary amount from him. Since the same are not returned, he has come forward with this writ petition with the prayer as stated supra.

3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent that the petitioner has not pledged eight bungles and he pledged only six bungles and one bracelet and therefore, he cannot seek for return of eight bungles, as sought for in this writ petition.

4. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent bank, the other two bungles which were already lying in the weighing machine belong to one Subbulakshmi and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim those two bungles also as that of himself.

5. Undoubtedly, these rival contentions with disputed facts are not for this court to consider and decide by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as those disputed question of facts have to be agitated only before the competent civil forum by letting in evidence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by the respective parties, however, by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial