1 / 3 9.wp6293.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6293 OF 2026 SMT. SADHANA W/O HARSHAD KATKORIA VS BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, NAGPUR AND ORS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Akshay A. Naik. Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Rohan R. Deo, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31.08.2026 Heard. 2. The present petition challenges concurrent findings by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. It is a matter of record that the petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit for damages along with an application for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction which was couched in the mandatory form seeks a direction to the defendant to defreeze the account. 3. The trial Court vide its order dated 13.11.2024 has rejected the application. The trial Court has recorded a finding in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 that the plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case. It has also Prity 2 / 3 9.wp6293.2026 recorded a finding that the defendants even though, prima facie, have shown that as per the rules framed in the year 2002 by the Bank of Baroda, defendant No.1 is authorised to freeze the account of the customer which failed to submit a KYC document. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rules and circulars being not in dispute, the trial Court has erred in law in refusing the injunction. 5. As far as the judgment of the appellate Court is concerned, it is his submission that the judgment of the appellate Court flows on a wrong premise and only rejects the appeal filed by the original plaintiff that the granting of an application of temporary injunction would amount to grant of final relief. 6. He points me out the prayer clause in the plaint that the suit essentially was filed for damages and the application for temporary injunction prayed for a mandatory injunction to defreeze the account. Even though, the learned appellate Court has proceeded on a wrong premise that granting of such relief would amount to a final relief, the conclusions rendered by the appellate Court in his judgment looking at the narrow scope of appeal against temporary injunction as held in the Prity 3 / 3 9.wp6293.2026 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., reported in 1990 (2) SCC 117, it was an appeal on discretion. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the appellate Court cannot be faulted with. 7. As far as the trial Court is concerned, a discretion has been soundly exercised by the trial Court, which I do not find to be perverse. The petition is merit- less and it is liable to be rejected. 8. Looking to the fact that the business of the plaintiff/petitioner, who is a senior citizen, had come to us stand still during the defreezing of accounts. The trial Court is requested to make an endeavour to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 17:48:38