Babul Sharma, a partner of the Partnership firm, M/s. Jivatma Corporation, had been agreed upon and submitted his immovable property title deed, i.e., his house, to the Manjushri Banker, to support the firm to avail the

The facts of the case given in question are similar to the case of 'Sandeep Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors, Delhi High Court, Judgement dated 20.01.2016'. Petition was dismissed in the above case citing the following reasons: The said suit was admittedly instituted prior to the institution of this petition. The petition is not maintainable on this ground alone. The petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief for which the petitioner, prior to instituting the writ petition, has already availed of the relief under the civil law. Supreme Court in 'Jai Singh vs. Union of India (1977)1 SCC 1' held that the appellant therein having filed a suit in which the same question as the subject matter in the writ petition was agitated could not be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. Similarly in 'Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 642' finding that the writ petitioner had availed of the alternative statutory remedy it was held that the writ petition should not have been entertained. Yet again in 'S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166' it was held that if a party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the court to entertain the writ petition. This rule was held to be based on public policy. Reference in this regard can also be made to 'K.S. Rashid and Son vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR 1954 SC 207', 'Madura Coats Limited vs. Union of India (UOI) 112 (2004) DLT622'. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 Bank which is the trustee of public monies cannot be left high and dry by granting the relief of releasing the security of the outgoing partners without the continuing/new partners substituting the said security. The petitioner prior to signing the deed of reconstitution of firm ought to have ensured that the security furnished by him is released, if that was the agreement with the respondents No.3 & 4. Therefore in the given question too, guarantee by Babul Sharma should not be released by Manjushri Bank for the reasons cited above.