Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 44044 (CAL)

PAPIA DEY v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

WPA/25932/2026 · 2026-09-28

Smita Das De

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28.09.2026 Item No.19 Ct. No. 10 BR WPA 25932 of 2026 Papia Dey -vs- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. PIngal Bhattacharyaya …. For the petitioner Mr. Sunit Bhunia … for the UOI Mr. A.K.NAG, Ms. Rishita Sarkar … for the IOCL Mr. Debashis Saha, Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Mr. Hyotishman Sarkar, Ms. S.Pal … for the SBI Mr. Pramit Bag, Mr. A. K. Mishra, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly, Mr. Rahul Agarwala, Ms. Utsa Poddar, Ms. Anjali Singh … for the respondent no. 12 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging, inter alia, the action of the Banking authorities in freezing the Joint Current Bank Account being No. 43754381056 with the State Bank of India, Bethuadahari Branch without verifying and scrutinizing the veracity of the documents submitted by the time of opening the said Bank Account. 2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a Partnership Deed was executed on 12th July 2024 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 12 in the name and style of H. N. Memorial Dey KSK, an unregistered Partnership firm, having a share in Profit and Loss to the extent of 90% and 10% respectively. Thereafter, the partners made an application for renewal of the Retail Selling License by submitting the reconstitution of the Partnership Deed. The same was subsequently executed with the private respondent IOCL on 28.05.2025 by entering into the terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement dated 10.09.2025 in the name of the Partnership firm. 3. The petitioner draws the attention of this Court that a complaint dated 28.08.2026 was lodged by the private respondent before the local Police Station, thereby registering an FIR on the ground that the petitioner has been operating the Bank Account individually by forging the signature of the Private Respondent. 4. The petitioner submits that the complaint lodged by the private respondent is mischievous and has been filed only to stall the smooth running of the Retail Outlet Dealership, alleging siphoning of money from the Bank Account maintained with the State Bank of India, Bethuadahari Branch and also for forging the signature of the private respondent for withdrawal of the money from the said account. On the basis of such complaint, the banking authorities of State Bank of India have frozen the Bank Account without prior information to the petitioner as a result of which the entire running of the Outlet Dealership has been hampered and the day to day 3 business transaction have come to a stand still. Such action of the banking authorities in freezing the bank account is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is detrimental to the interest of the public at large. 5. The petitioner submits that such complaint lodged against the petitioner is harassive and violates Article 14, 19(1G) and 21 of the constitution of India. Despite purchasing the entire plot of land from the private respondent for constructing the petrol pump, the petitioner’s interest in the business is at stake by not permitting the petitioner to operate the Joint Bank Account for running the retail outlet business. It is not in dispute that the plot ofland on which the petrol pump has been constructed stands in the name of the petitioner which is evident from the Deed of Conveyance annexed to the Writ Petition at page 54 and 55 of the Writ Petition. 6. It is further submitted that upon execution of the Dealership Agreement, the petitioner and the private respondents being partners, opened a Joint Current Bank Account in state Bank of India, Bethuadahari Branch for operating the retail outlet dealership, being joint bank current account No. 43754381056. The petitioner submits that the business was running uninterruptedly. To its utter surprise, the petitioner found in the 1st week of January 2026 the said bank account has been frozen and has been made inoperational as per the standing instruction of the Private respondent. 4 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent raises an objection and submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is defective as one of the partners has approached this Court in individual capacity while the cause of action, if any, survives for the Partnership firm which is not impleaded as a party. It is also submitted that the Partnership deed contains an Arbitration Clause. When disputed questions of fact and documents requiring evidentiary scrutiny as to veracity are involved, the writ court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. 8. It is submitted that on the ground of opening a Joint Current Account No. 43754381056 with State Bank of India, Rajapur Petrol Pump which was to be operated jointly as per the Partnership deed and on allegation of withdrawal of money by forging signature, a complaint has been lodged and an FIR has been registered. 9. It is further submitted that the Partnership deed annexed to the Writ Petition is not the original deed and is different from the deed that was submitted before the IOCL at the time of grant of the Retail Outlet Dealership. 10. It is further submitted that as per the Partnership deed there is an arbitration clause. Without invoking such clause, the petitioner has approached by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is not maintainable in the eye of law since it is a settled proposition of law that Writ Court has very limited scope to entertain a matter where factual disputes are involved along with 5 documentary evidentiary value which requires scrutiny and examination of the veracity of the documents relied upon for adjudication. 11. It is further submitted that the Partnership Deed which has been annexed to the Writ Petition is not the original Partnership deed and it is a manufactured / forged document and the original Partnership deed was never submitted for effective adjudication before the IOCL at the time of change of status of the retail outlet from Sole Proprietorship to Joint Partnership Account and thus the same cannot be taken as a part of the record for adjudication. 12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the IOCL submits that the Partnership Deed furnished by the Writ Petitioner was submitted for approval of the Retail Outlet Dealership and the same has been duly scrutinized by the concerned authorities. 13. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent IOCL submits that the partnership deed annexed to the writ petition is the deed which was submitted for approval of the license of the Retail Outlet Dealership. On the basis of such document, approval for the reconstitution has been granted in favour of the partnership firm. 14. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Banking authorities produces a bunch of documents which are taken on record to demonstrate that the Bank Account which stood in the name of Current Joint Account has been frozen on the basis of a letter dated 24.08.2026 6 issued by the private respondent and the FIR registered against the petitioner being Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 881 of 2026 dated 28.08.2026 15. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. This Court has taken judicial notice of all the relevant documents annexed to the Writ Petition including the documents relied upon by the banking authorities. 16. Upon perusal of the said documents this Court is of the considered view that the issue of alleged forgery and withdrawal is a subject matter of separate criminal proceeding which shall be decided on merits independently and the same cannot be a ground to freeze the operation of the Joint Current Account meant for running the retail outlet dealership which is required to be run in public interest. 17. This Court has considered the objection as to the maintainability. Prima facie, the dispute relates to freezing of the Joint Current Account No. 43754381056 maintained with State Bank of India for operation of the IOCL Retail Outlet at Rajapur which directly affects the petitioner’s right to operate the account as a Joint Account holder. The presence of an arbitration clause or disputed questions as to Partnership deed cannot oust the writ jurisdiction when arbitrary action of the banking authorities in making the account in operational is under 7 challenge. Hence, the objection as to maintainability is overruled at this stage. 18. This Court has perused the documents produced by the Banking authorities. Prima facie it appears that the Current Joint Account maintained with State Bank of India for Rajapur Petrol pump was made inoperational / frozen solely at the behest of the private respondent on the basis of his letter dated 24.08.2026 and subsequent FIR dated 28.08.2026 without issuing any prior notice to the Writ Petitioner, who is a Joint Account Holder and without following the due procedure laid down for freezing a Current Account. Such unilateral action by the Bank, at the instance of one Joint Account holder against the other, is not sustainable in law. Particularly when the account is required for running the IOCL Retail Outlet Dealership in for the public interest at large. 19. This Court is also takes note with regard to the conduct of the private respondent which is highly condemnable and that serious, stringent action is warranted against him for misleading this Court by projecting a Partnership deed, as the original deed, while alleging the Partnership deed annexed to the Writ Petition to be forged. As submitted by the IOCL authorities the Partnership deed furnished for reconstitution of the partnership for execution of the Dealership Agreement and the Partnership deed annexed to the Writ petition submitted for dealership as one and the same. This court has taken serious note of the conduct of the private 8 respondent No. 10 to hoodwink this Court by way of misrepresentation. 20. The Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent sought to make such an extraneous submissions which, in the opinion of this court, is not warranted to be gone at this stage. From the documents on record this Court is satisfied that the prayer made in the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed so that the retail Outlet Dealership can run smoothly in the interest of the public at large. 21. The respondent No. 11 is directed to forthwith change the mode of operation of the Joint Current Bank Account No. 43754381056 and make the Current Account to be operational in such a manner that it can be operated jointly by both the partners by running the Retail Outlet Dealership, within a period of 72 hours from the date of communication of this Order. 22. However, it is made clear that such operation shall continue as per the earlier mode of operation of funds as mentioned in the application for maintaining the Bank Account. This Court does not express any opinion with regard to criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no bar to operate the Bank Account for running the business and the proceeding shall continue independently on its own merits. 23. This Court has taken the most serious view of the conduct of the private respondent. The said respondent has not only attempted to mislead this Court by 9 suppressing the material facts and projecting a fabricated Partnership deed as genuine but also tried to hoodwink the Banking authorities and IOCL authorities for unlawful gain. Such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of the process of the Court and interference with the administration of justice. The act of forging the signatures of the petitioner for operating the Joint Current Account No. 43754381056 of State Bank of India, Rajapur Branch and thereafter filing a false Deed before this Court is highly condemnable, dishonest and perverse. This Court, therefore deprecate such misdemennour in the strongest term and hold that the private respondent is liable to be saddled an exemplary cost for his contumacious conduct. The conduct of private respondent is deliberately misleading this Court by producing a false and fabricated Partnership deed is nothing short of forgery and fraud played upon the Court. Such unscrupulous attempt to subvert the course of justice coupled with the allegation of forging the signature of the petitioner for siphoning of funds from the Joint current Account shocks the concern of the Court. This Court cannot countenance such dishonest litigant who has abused the process of law. Accordingly, this Court imposes an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon Private respondent to be deposited with the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within a week from the date of communication of this order and an affidavit of compliance annexing proof of payment shall be filed before the Learned Registrar General. 10 24. With the above observations and directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Smita Das De, J.)