The court ruled that private banks do not qualify as state instrumentalities under Article 12, and no writ lies against them unless statutory rights or fundamental rights are infringed.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

This Writ Petition questions the inaction of Respondents 4 and 5 in effecting change in authorised signatories of the current account of petitioners' firm in their banks, as per the Board Resolution dated 21-12-2024. A direction is sought to Respondents 4 and 5 to implement the change forthwith. The grievance of petitioner is that respondent banks have refused to honour and implement a valid board resolution duly passed in accordance with the LLP Agreement and confirmed by the Arbitral Award. The impugned refusal lacks authority of law, violates the LLP's contractual autonomy, and infringes upon Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution. Petitioner further challenged the order of the 3rd respondent dated 25-08-2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The brief facts of the case are, petitioner is a limited liability partnership firm for purchase and development of lands, construction of flats thereof, residential and commercial complex or complexes either singly or jointly or in partnership, comprising offices for sale or self-use or for earning rental earning thereon by letting out individual units in such units. The firm also intends to purchase any movable or immovable property including industrial, commercial, residential or farm lands, plots, buildings, houses, apartments, flats or areas within the limits of Municipal Corporation etcetera and to divide the same into suitable plots and to rent or sell the plots for buildings, constructing residential houses, bungalows, business premises, colonies etcetera.

2.1. Petitioner is stated to have acquired certain lands for various developmental activities and the subject matter is with regard to development of land at Uppal Bhagayat wherein 170 flats have been constructed in an area around 6425 sq. yards. The construction activity was started in 2022 and completed and most of the units have been pre-booked by the prospective buyers and they have entered into various agreements initially whereas certain agreements have been entered after construction was completed. During pendency of execution of sale agreements, some of the partners of petitioner, i.e. Respondents 6 and 7, who were not partners in the initial LLP Agreement were introduced as partners, by virtue of supplementary Agreement dated 08-01-2022, by adopting most of the Clauses of the primary LLP Agreement. To substantiate their contention that if a majority passes an issue, it becomes binding. Petitioner relied upon the following Clauses 60 and 61 of primary LLP Agreement:

“ Clause 60: The matters discussed in the firm meeting shall be decided by a resolution passed by a majority partners present in person or through authorised representative and each partner shall have one vote (matters to be decided by a resolution passed by a majority number of the partners who are more specifically described in the Schedule 2 annexed thereto). All the partners are required to vote.

Clause 61: The matters shall be decided by a resolution by all partners present in person or through authorised representative and in this regard each partner shall have one vote (matters to be decided by a resolution passed by all partners which are more specifically described in Schedule 3 annexed thereto). All the partners are required to vote.

2.2. Petitioner further stated that original Clause 10 of LLP partnership Agreement was replaced by another clause which reads as under :

" Current Account can be open