HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8288 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.1 i.e. Piramal finance company to close the loan account of the petitioner's husband bearing No.M0125972 immediately in the light of petitioner's death certificate as well as petitioner's application dated 28.07.2025 contained as ANNEXURE NO.3 and 4 to this writ petition. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband in his life time had availed the cash credit loan of Rs.45 lacs and odd, which amount was insured by respondent no.1 with the help of its subsidiary company i.e. Pramerica Life Insurance Limited and despite repeated representations to respondent nos.1 and 2, no heed has been paid. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. A preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition has been raised as the writ petition has been filed against private respondents and seeks a mandamus to be issued to such private limited company in writ jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Gokul Chand (D) through LRs vs. Axis Bank Ltd. and another (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.14140 of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Nath Tripahti Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rashmi Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) Piramal Finance Ltd. Thru Branch Manager Hazratganj Lucknow And Anr. .....Respondent(s) 2020), decided on 15.12.2022. 6. We have gone through the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The respondent no.1 therein acting as an agent has sanctioned the home loan and also the insurance premium was paid on behalf of the insured Gokul Chand by the Bank to the Insurance Company. The Gokul Chand had faced a medical test as a pre-condition for securing the home loan and insurance police, but within one month, he died of cardiac arrest. The Insurance Company refused to settle the loan account when the insurance claim was made. Consequently, a Consumer Complaint was filed by the appellants before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. The State Commission dismissed the said complaint with the observation that there was no privity of contract between the insurer and the insured. An appeal was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after considering the facts of the case including the loan documents, the insurance policy and the agreement between the Bank and the Insurance Company, observed that the conduct of the Insurance Company cannot be countenanced as it is against the good faith standards that an insurance contract warrants. In this case, the pre-condition for the home loan as stipulated by the respondents was that life of the borrower will have to be insured. Only after assessment of the applicant's credentials, the home loan was approved. The premium amount was kept aside and was credited to the account of the Insurance Company and the insured was subjected to a medical test, which showed his normal health status. The premium was accepted and retained for the life insurance. The insurance process was complete and all mandatory requirements were met. No contrary communication was given by the Insurance Company to the insured. It could not repudiate the insurance contract. 7. Having gone through the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the S.L.P. had arisen out of a dispute initially raised before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and thereafter the appeal having been filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In the case of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, straightaway arraying Piramal Finance Limited and Pramerica Life Insurance Limited as respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively to the writ WRIC No. 8288 of 2025 2 petition. 8. The petitioner prays for a specific performance of the contract. No writ petition for specific performance of the contract entered into by private parties is maintainable. 9. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. August 28, 2025 Sachin WRIC No. 8288 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench