Dismissed

State Bank of Mysroe v. Manohar Martin

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022RFA/1587/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC against a money recovery decree, the appellant admitted that the dispute was settled with full payment and issuance of a No Due Certificate, leading the court to dismiss the appeal as having no survival for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as having no survival for consideration; office directed to refund permissible court fee.

State Bank of Mysroe Vs Manohar Martin — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 1587 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1587 OF 2007 (MON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE BANK OF MYSROE UNKAL BRANCH, HUBLI HAVING ITS HEAD AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT BANGALORE, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ANANTH PAI

¶10

(BY SRI. S K HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MANOHAR MARTIN

¶13

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O BHASKAR KURI

¶14

OCC:BUSINESS-CUM-AGRICULTURE

¶15

R/O FLAT NO.4, KURI CHAWAL HOSUR GOKUL ROAD

¶16

HUBLI – 580020

¶17

ROBERT DINAKAR

¶18

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶19

(a) SMT.SHEELA, W/O ROBERT DINAKAR MAJOR

¶20

R/AT FLAT NO.4, KURI CHAWL HOSUR GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI – 580020

¶21

(b) MASTER GLADSON MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER

¶22

…APPELLANT

¶23

¶24

RFA No. 1587 of 2007

¶25

SHEELA R/AT FLAT NO.4, KURI CHAWL HOSUR GOKUL ROAD HUBLI – 580020.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2(A) – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R2(B) MINOR REP. BY R2(A))

¶28

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.19.2.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.228/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HUBLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed a memo stating that the dispute between the appellant and the respondents is settled finally and that the respondents has paid a sum of Rs.84,000/- towards full and final settlement towards loan account bearing No.54007207510 and that the appellant has issued ‘No Due Certificate’.

¶32

The learned counsel Sri. S.K. Hegde appearing for the appellant admits the same and submits that the appeal does not survive for consideration.

¶33

¶34

RFA No. 1587 of 2007

¶35

The memo is placed on record.

¶36

In view of the above, this appeal is disposed off

¶37

as having not survive for consideration.

¶38

Office is directed to refund permissible Court fee.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

State Bank of Mysroe v. Manohar Martin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of Mysroe v. Manohar Martin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivabai Baburao Kupati Vs Mallikarjun Shivashankar Chikodi

Basappa S/O Venkobappa Vs N. Srinivas S/O Methayya

Holebasu S/O. Mahadevappa Channashetti Vs Parappa S/O. Ningappa Channashetti

Mohammad Ghouse Vs Padmavathamma

Hazasratbi Vs Abdulkhadersab

Laxman S/O Bhimappa Gurav @ Hugar Vs Sabu S/O Tamanna Santi