Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Rajoria vs State Bank Of India on 25 September, 2019
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 WP-18513-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18513-2019
(MAHENDRA RAJORIA Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-09-2019
Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent.
After hearing preliminary argument, prima facie, this court is of the opinion that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in this case as the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how either a legal right or a constitutional right has been violated for this Court to exercise its plenary powers under Article 226.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the demand draft was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 as a gift towards the marriage of his daughter into the family of the respondent No. 4. The said proposal could not conclude in a marriage and it resulted in the registration of an FIR. The period of the demand draft has also expired and the respondent No. 4 has not encashed it.
Under the circumstances, the money is lying with the bank. Upon the bank being approached, the bank informed the petitioner that he must either produce the original bank draft or an undertaking that the said bank draft is lost, if he wants to get the money deposited with the bank towards the execution of the demand draft.
Under the circumstances, prima facie, this court feels that no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated however, the petitioner has sought time to place on record judgments to the contrary.
List this case on 01-10-2019.
The office is also requested to reflect the name of Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE Date: 26/09/2019 11:21:19 2 WP-18513-2019 PG Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE Date: 26/09/2019 11:21:19