Calcutta High Court
WPA/474/2026 of M/S SRI MAKAABHA PAPER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/474/2026 M/s Sri Makaabha Paper Products Pvt. Ltd Vs The Managing Director and another Mr. Siddhartha Singha, K. … for the petitioner Ms. A.S.Zinu … for the respondents September 23, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. The writ
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
***
WPA/474/2026
M/s Sri Makaabha Paper Products Pvt. Ltd
Vs
The Managing Director and another
Mr. Siddhartha Singha, K.
… for the petitioner
Ms. A.S.Zinu
… for the respondents
September 23, 2026
[SR]
Item No.1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner who claims to be a loanee of the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited.
2. He has availed a term loan of Rs.90.00 lakhs. He claims that he has repaid nearly a crore of rupees. He further claims that there is genuine difficulty and hindrance which compels him to approach the authorities for settling the matter before the Lok Adalat.
3. A direction is sought by way of a writ petition to direct the respondent bank to participate in the Lok Adalat proceeding. In effect, the petitioner has sought reference to a Lok Adalat in respect of a loan account by direction issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned advocate for the respondent-bank opposes the maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Considering the nature of relief sought for in the writ petition, this court would observe that by now it is a trite law that the existence of right is a pre-requisite to invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all the parties are desirous of settling the matter in the Lok Adalat or any other such forum, it is open to the parties to do so.
6. However, the petitioner is not able to make out any enforceable right based on which a direction can be issued upon the Bank for settling the dues in Lok Adalat, in exercise of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The relief claimed by the writ petitioner is therefore misconceived.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. The Court however makes it clear that no opinion is expressed on the claim of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedies before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
10. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )