SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Srimathy, J
Suvitha – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Usilampatti Branch, Madurai District – Respondent
W.P. CRL (MD)No.985 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

The petition for Writ of Mandamus was deemed unnecessary as the claimed redemption had already been executed by the Bank.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus against the bank. Facts of the Case: The petitioner requested to redeem pledged gold jewels, while the bank claimed redemption had already occurred.

Findings of Court:
The court found the issues raised by the petitioner unviable for consideration.

Issues: The court questioned whether the redemption sought was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the jewels were already redeemed, the current petition to redeem was not warranted.

Result: The Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ of mandamus for bank redemption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court finds issues unviable for consideration. (Para 4)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P. CRL (MD)No.985 of 2026 Suvitha ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Usilampatti Branch, Madurai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Sedapatti, Madurai District.

(Crime No.70 of 2025) ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2025 so as to allow her for redeem the pledged gold jewels vide Loan Account No.1640 in Savings Bank Account No.

1022101041246 by defreeze within time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar (R1)

Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

(R2)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2025 and to allow her for redeem the pledged gold jewels vide Loan Account No.1640 in Savings Bank Account No.1022101041246 by defreeze within time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner had already redeemed the jewels on 17.10.2020 and therefore the relief sought by the petitioner for redemption has already been granted with by the Bank.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the account in question is involved in a criminal case.

4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to consider the issues raised by the petitioner at this juncture and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. With the above, this Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top