Competing claims to frozen mutual-fund proceeds must be resolved in the pending civil suit.

The petitioner, widow of P. Ayyappan, stated that she was nominated in his HDFC Mutual Fund folio and that, after submitting the required documents, the investments were transmitted to her and held under Folio No. 17039755.

When she attempted to withdraw the funds, she learned that the folio had been frozen on 16 April 2026 in connection with pending litigation.

After the Fund’s service centre stated that the restriction was maintained to safeguard the parties’ interests, she petitioned under Article 226 seeking release of the folio, limited to her minor son’s educational expenses.

The third respondent relied on pending civil suits, including O.S. No. 440 of 2025 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, in which entitlement to the investment was disputed.

1. Whether the High Court should direct the removal of the freeze on the mutual fund folio under Article 226 when rival claims to the investment are pending before a civil court.

2. Whether the petitioner should pursue her claim to the funds in the pending civil proceedings rather than through the writ petition.

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to resolve disputed questions of fact or determine competing claims to property where those matters are already before a competent civil court.

The order cited no statutory provision beyond Article 226 and no judicial precedents.

The Court noted that the investment and the parties’ respective rights to it were subjects of O.S. No. 440 of 2025, alongside claims concerning multiple properties and other monetary matters.

Because the petitioner’s requested relief would affect the disputed investment while those rival claims remained before the civil court, the Court declined to determine entitlement or order release of the folio in the writ proceeding.

It directed the petitioner to work out her remedy in the civil court.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.