1. The Petitioner No.1 is a Partnership Firm which had been conducting the business of LPG Distributorship of the Respondent No.5/Oil Marketing Company. The Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Partner of the Petitioner No.1, who has represented the Petitioner No.1 in this Writ Petition. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Assistant General Manager and the Branch Manager of the Kuttippuram Branch of the State Bank of India. The Respondent No.3 is the Partner of the Petitioner No.1 along with Petitioner No.2 as per Ext.P1 Partnership Deed dated 18.08.2015. This Writ Petition is filed on 19.08.2026 seeking direction to the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 to remove the freeze/inoperative status and to restore the normal operation of the Account No.00000038093480065 in favour of the Petitioners and to declare that such freezing/marking the account as inoperative without a valid Order from the competent Court or statutory authority is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The prayer is opposed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 by filing a Counter Affidavit dated 03.09.2026 and by the Respondent No.3 by filing a Counter Affidavit dated 29.08.2026. The Petitioners have filed a Reply Affidavit dated 07.09.2026 to the Counter Affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri. P.A. Harish, the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2, Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, Sri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Oil Marketing Company, Sri. Nithin George.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that as per Ext.P1 Partnership Deed, the Petitioner No.2 is having 51% share in Petitioner No.1 and she is the Managing Partner of the Petitioner No.1 to exercise all the powers with respect to Petitioner No.1 including operation of the bank account and filing of cases. The operation of the bank account of the Petitioner No.1 is essential to conduct LPG Distributorship of the Petitioner No.1 which is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, necessary for the day-to-day functions of the general public. Petitioner No.1 is having more than 17,000 domestic LPG consumers, apart from other types of consumers. If the operation of the account is prevented, the day-to-day functioning of the LPG Distributorship will be affected and it would be detrimental to the public interest. When the Respondent Bank illegally prevented the operation of the account, the Petitioners filed suit before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, and obtained Ext.P2 Order of Temporary Injunction on 08.06.2026 against the Respondent Bank restraining the Respondent Bank from freezing, blocking or otherwise preventing the Petitioner No.1 from operating the account mentioned above, except in accordance with law or pursuant to any express statutory mandate. The Respondent Bank has been refusing to comply with Ext.P2 Order of Temporary Injunction, and on account of the emergent need for operation of the account, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to unfreeze the account. The Petitioner No.2 is having majority share in Petitioner No.1 than the Respondent No.3 and hence the decision of the Petitioner No.2 will prevail with respect to the affairs of the Petitioner No.1. If at all any of the rights of the Respondent No.3 are violated, it is for the Respondent No.3 to approach the Civil Court and obtain favourable Orders. The Respondent No.3 attempted to implead in the suit filed by the Petitioners and the said Application was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Respondent No.3 has not taken any steps to challenge the said Order. The Respondent Bank has prevented the operation of the account on account of a request made by the Respondent No.3. The Respondent Bank has no right or authority to prevent operation of the account in the absence of any Order from any Court or authority and on a mere communication from Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 has sent Ext.R3(e) Notice for dissolution of the Petitioner No.1 and the same is accepted by the Petitioner No.1. In view of Section 43(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, the firm is dissolved from the date mentioned in the Notice as the date of dissolution of notice. The Respondent No.3 is no longer a partner of the Petitioner No.1 from the date of Ext.R3(e) Notice, i.e., 31.08.2026 and hence he cannot interfere with the functioning of the Petitioner No.1 from the said date. The Respondent No.3 will not have any liability with respect to the operation of the Firm after the date of the Ext.R3(e) Notice. The subject account of the Petitioner No.1 is an e-DFS Account, which is a Cash Credit account to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs to facilitate payment to the Oil Marketing Company opened in the name of the Petitioner No.1 as per the tripartite Agreement executed by Petitioner No.1, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.5. The Petitioner is ready to remit the entire amount outstanding in the said Cash Credit account in order to make the account operational and to discharge the Respondent No.3 from any liability on account of the operation of the account. The Petitioner is ready to bring the financial requirements for conducting the Petitioner No.1. In such case, the Respondent No.3 will not have any financial liability on account of the financial assistance availed by the Petitioner No.1. Since the said main account is not operational, the Petitioners were compelled to route the transactions of the Petitioner No.1 through another account taken in the name of the Petitioner No.1 as the sole proprietorship represented by the Petitioner No.2 as its sole proprietor to continue the business of LPG Distributorship, as a temporary measure. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Paraveettil Haris v. Chathu Kottollathil [2013 KHC 2739] in which this Court held that a partnership at will does not require intervention of the Court for its dissolution and even a notice of dissolution or a suit for rendition of accounts will amount to dissolution of the partnership at will. The learned Counsel pointed out that in the said decision, this Court upheld the Order of the Trial Court allowing renewal of licence in favour of the partner of the firm having majority share in order to continue the business conducted by the firm. Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Venkateswarlu v. C. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao (died) and Others [AIR 2002 AP 62] in which it is held that the firm stands dissolved on the date when the partners received the notice. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying for a direction to the Respondent/Bank to permit the Petitioner No.1, represented by Petitioner No.2, to operate the subject account.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2/Banks submitted that the Petitioner No.1 is a firm which was having two partners, namely, Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.3. As on today, even going by the case of the Petitioners, the firm is not existing. The account sought to be unfrozen is the account belonging to the Petitioner No.1. In such case, the operation of the said account cannot be permitted. It is true that the Petitioners have obtained Ext.P2 Order of Temporary Injunction against the Respondent/Bank restraining it from freezing, blocking or otherwise preventing the Petitioner No.1 from operating the subject account. But the Trial Court passed the Ext.P2 Order relying on a fundamental mistake committed by the Bank by stating that the subject account is a current account of the Petitioner No.1. In fact, the subject account is an e-DFS account, which is a Cash Credit account providing overdraft facility. The said facility has to be renewed from year to year and the same expired in July 2026 for want of request for renewal by both partners. Since the said Cash Credit was obtained at the instance of both the partners of the Petitioner No.1 and in view of the dissolution of the firm, the Petitioner No.2 could not be permitted to operate the account in the name of the Petitioner No.1, as the consent of the Respondent No.3 is not there. Since Ext.P2 Order was passed in favour of the Petitioners on account of the mistaken submission made by the Respondent/Bank, the Bank has filed a Review Petition before the Trial Court to review Ext.P2 Order. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the dispute is substantially between the partners of the Petitioner No.1 arising out of a contract. In such circumstances, the prayer in the Writ Petition could not be allowed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Counsel for Respondent No.3 contended that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as the Writ Petitioners have suppressed the earlier Writ Petitions filed by them before this Court for the very purpose and Ext.R3(a) Judgment dismissing those Writ Petitions, finding that the same are not maintainable, relegating the Petitioners to the Civil Court, as the issue was of purely civil in nature and would fall under the realm of contract. In view of the specific findings in Ext.R3(a) Inter-party Judgment also, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. The present Writ Petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. That apart, the Petitioners have already approached the Civil Court and obtained Ext.P2 Order of Temporary Injunction. If the said Order of Temporary Injunction is not complied with by the Respondent/Bank, it is for the Petitioners to work out their remedies in the Civil Court itself and are not entitled to bypass the proceedings by filing another Writ Petition. Learned Counsel contended that when the Petitioner No.2 found it difficult to conduct the LPG distributorship, the Petitioner No.2 wanted to transfer the business to the Respondent No.3. Since it is not legally possible to transfer the LPG distributorship granted to the sole proprietorship represented by Petitioner No.2, the Respondent No.3 was inducted as a partner, converting the sole proprietorship into the Petitioner No.1 Firm. In order to show that the Petitioner No.1 is in the control of the Petitioner No.2, 51% share is recorded in the name of Petitioner No.2. But in fact, the share of the Petitioner No.2 is only 25% and the share of Respondent No.3 is 75%. When the Petitioner No.2 started conducting the business of the Petitioner No.1 Firm as her own business, inducting her son and daughter-in-law without accounting the same to the Respondent No.3 and without giving any share or profit to the Respondent No.3, the Respondent No.3 wanted to see that the properties and the profits of the Petitioner No.1 are not misappropriated by the Petitioner No.2. When the Petitioner No.2 misappropriated the cash from the Firm by routing the business transactions through another account of the Petitioner No.2, the Respondent No.3 filed a Criminal complaint against the Petitioner and her son & daughter-in-law, and the Police have registered Ext.R3(d) Crime against them. Since the Cash Credit facility was availed on the joint application of the Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.3, both are equally liable for the said financial assistance to the Bank. On the request of the Respondent No.3, the Respondent/Bank rightly converted the operation of the account as joint operation by Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 has issued Ext.R3(e) Notice for Dissolution to the Petitioner No.2, and thereafter Petitioner No.1 is not existing. But it will not authorise the Petitioner No.2 to continue operation of the account in the name of the Petitioner No.1 by herself which was availed on the joint application of the Petitioner No.2 and the Respondent No.3. Since the rights of the parties arise out of contract, the same can be resolved only in a properly instituted civil proceedings. Since there is an arbitration clause in Ext.P1 Deed, the dispute has to be resolved in arbitration proceedings. Learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in South Indian Bank v. M/s. PDMC Industries [2025 KHC 1307], to elaborate the principle of res judicata. Learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Nisha M. and Another v. State Bank of India, Malappuram and Another [2021 KHC 5210], in which this Court dismissed the Writ Petition in similar circumstances. Learned Counsel pointed out that the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners were dismissed relying on this decision in Ext.R3(a) Judgment.

7. Counsel for the Respondent No.5 submitted that as of now the LPG Distributorship of Petitioner No.1 is running and in case of difficulty in continuing the LPG Distributorship by the Petitioner No.1, the Respondent No.5 has to invoke the Holiday Scheme to entrust the Distributorship to another till the settlement of the disputes.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to permit the Petitioners to operate their Cash Credit account. Petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.193/2025 with respect to the same account. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by Ext.R3(a) Judgment along with another Writ Petition with respect to another account of the Petitioner No.1 with South Indian Bank. Those Writ Petitions were dismissed by Ext.R3(a) Judgment on the ground that they are not maintainable and relegating the Petitioners to the Civil Court, finding that the foundational dispute is between the partners of the Petitioner No.1 and the issue is of purely civil in nature and would fall under the realm of contract. This Court followed the decision in Nisha M. (supra). The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition suppressing the earlier Writ Petition and the Ext.R3(a) Judgment and hence the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of material suppression.

10. In view of the principle laid down in Ext.R3(a) judgment and Nisha M. (supra) also, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. That apart, Ext.R3(a) Judgment is an Inter-party Judgment and hence the Petitioners are bound by the findings in the said Judgment.

11. The subject account is a Cash Credit Account opened in the name of the Petitioner No.1 Firm on the joint Application of the Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.3 for availing overdraft facility. Initially, the account was operated by the Petitioner No.2 alone. Subsequently, the operation was made joint on the request of the Respondent No.3. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that the facility expired for want of renewal by the partners of the Petitioner No.1. In such case, this Court cannot direct the Respondent Bank to permit operation of the account.

12. Both sides accept the dissolution of Petitioner No.1. In such case, Ext.P1 Deed has come to an end and the Petitioner No.2 cannot claim any right on the basis of Ext.P1 Deed. Hence, the Petitioner No.2 cannot claim operation of the account as Managing Partner of the Firm.

13. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners is that Ext.P2 Order of Injunction is in favour of the Petitioners. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank is that Ext.P2 Order was passed on the basis of a mistaken representation made by the Bank and the Bank has filed a Review Petition to review the said Order. Even otherwise, the Petitioners in Ext.P2 are the Petitioners in this Writ Petition. Ext.P2 Order is in favour of Petitioner No.1. Ext.P2 Order is dated 08.06.2026. Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 admit that the Petitioner No.1 is dissolved subsequently as per Ext.R3(e) Notice dated 31.08.2026. The effect of such dissolution is a matter for the Civil Court to decide.

14. The dissolution of the Petitioner No.1 happened after the filing of this Writ Petition. After the dissolution of Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.2 cannot continue this Writ Petition, representing the Petitioner No.1.

15. It is for the pa­­­­rtners of the Petitioner No.1 to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings before Civil Court or in arbitration proceedings with respect to their disputes arising from Ext.P1 including those relating to the business of the Firm and those proceedings shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations in this Judgment.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed.