9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has been filed seeking for a Mandamus, directing the third respondent depository functioning under the control of the first respondent as statutory body, to permit the petitioner to operate his Demat Account bearing No. 354492 maintained by the third respondent. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he had contractual agreement with the third respondent to maintain his Demat Accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. Aggrieved by the foreclosure and freezing of the demat account, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking mandamus to operate the frozen account. It is further submitted that apart from the shares of Deepak Bhatia, other shares are also held in the said demat account and the petitioner is unable to deliver those shares sold as such, due to the freezing of the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be tried under Article 226. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable which is the main ground of attack. However, the third respondent has no power to freeze the demat account. 4. Heard both parties and perused the materials, available on record. 5. By consent of both-parties, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal. 6. Even as admitted by the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Article 226 is not maintainable and the contractual question is only a question of fact. It is always open to the petitioner to seek any remedy in accordance with law, in an appropriate forum in any civil, insofar as the denial of operation of the demat account.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
