- (1.) THIS mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the writ-petitioner and is directed against order dated 1 st October, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship refused to grant any ad interim order of injunction at the time of passing direction for filling affidavit by the respondents. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present mandamus-appeal.
(2.) THE writ-petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Amal Kumar Kayal, Kamal Kayal and Smt. Kakali Parui. In the writ-application, the writ-petitioner, represented by the first two above named partners, prayed for the following relief: " (a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from acting beyond their capacity and power conferred under the banking rules and norms; (b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass the cheques as referred to in paragraphs hereinabove upon further presentation without any further delay or default; (c) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw, cancel the remarks issued while dealing with those cheques and also not to charge for such illegal imposition of return charges; (d) A writ of certiorari commanding the respondents to transmit and certify the records of the case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be made to the petitioner by quashing the order for return of the said cheques being annexure "p-3" and "p-6" to this application ; (e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) as above ; (f) Interim order directing the respondents to clear the cheques being annexure "p-3" and "p-6" to this application upon further presentation; (g) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (f) as above ; (h) Any other further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions on Your Lordship may deem fit and proper; (i) Costs and incidentals to this application. "
(3.) THE grievance of the writ-petitioner may be summed up thus : (a) The writ-petitioner/firm opened a current account with the respondent-bank having its branch at Thakurpukur and at the time of opening of such account, it was agreed by the parties that any of the two partners of the firm would be entitled to operate the bank account. The writ-petitioner obtained cash credit facility from the respondent-bank with overall limit of Rs. 20 lakh. (b) In course of business transactions, disputes arose between Sm. Kakali Parui, one of the partners and the remaining two partners viz. Amal Kumar. Kayal and Kamal Kayal, as a result, Sm. Kakali parui gave a written instruction to the bank not to clear any cheque unless all the three partners jointly operate the account in deviation from the earlier instruction given by the firm of operation of the account by any two of the partners. (c) In view of such instruction given by Sm. Kakali Parui, one of the partners, the bank refused to clear two cheques being annexure "p-3" and "p-6" to the writ-application jointly issued by Amal and kamal and such action on the part of the bank gave rise to the filing of the writ -application. ;