Disposed

Print Imaging Systems v. Rbl Bank Limited

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024WP/12549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A proprietorship sought mandamus directing its bank to consider its representations. The bank handed over the statement of accounts, rendering one prayer infructuous; the court disposed of the petition directing the bank to consider the remaining representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-bank directed to consider representation at Annexure-J dated 06.04.2024 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within one month.

Print Imaging Systems Vs Rbl Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21127 WP No. 12549 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.12549 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PRINT IMAGING SYSTEMS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIEX, SMT RAMYA DEVI A, W/O MR RAJENDRAN SOMASHEKAR, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 001, GROUND FLOOR,L BLOCK B, IN APARTMENT PLAMA HEIGHTS, HENNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 043.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

RBL BANK LIMITED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, / MANAGER, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, PRESTIGE TOWER, 3^RD FLOOR, 99 AND 100, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025.

¶12

(BY SRI. V SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK ON 06/04/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:21127 WP No. 12549 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶20

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-bank to consider the representation given by the petitioner to the respondent bank on 06.04.2024 produced at Annexure-J.

¶21

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent bank to consider the representation/Email dated 15.11.2023 mentioned at Screenshot sent to the respondent bank on 15.11.2023 mentioned at annexure-H.

¶22

c) Grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation at Annexures-H and J dated 15.11.2023 and 06.04.2024, respectively, submitted by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondent and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the request of the petitioner at Annexures-H and J have been complied with by the respondent, who has handed over a copy of the statement of accounts to the learned counsel for the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21127 WP No. 12549 of 2024

¶27

petitioner, who acknowledges the receipt of the said statement of accounts by the respondent-Bank.

¶28

Accordingly, prayer No.(b) in the writ petition does not

¶29

survive for consideration any more. In so far as prayer No.(a) is concerned, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent-Bank to consider the representation at Annexure-J dated 06.04.2024 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ

¶31

petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

BMC

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Print Imaging Systems v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Print Imaging Systems v. Rbl Bank Limited

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

Mr Selvakumar Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt. Vijayalakshmi. H. a. Vs the Bengaluru City Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Shri Akmal Pasha Vs Home First Finance Company

Global Payment Services Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahendra Babu Gadadoss Vs Axis Bank Limited

M/S Karnata Ventures LLP Vs M/S Pirmal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.