Dismissed¶32

Kanthamma v. Union Bank of India

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WP/1397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:45711 | WP No. 1397 of 2022 | Kanthamma v. Union Bank of India and Bhavani Consultants and Constructions | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru | Jyoti M, J. | Decided 11-11-2025 | Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed as withdrawn on petitioner's memo; petitioner undertook not to seek recall or file a review petition; R2 served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ¶32

Kanthamma Vs Union Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45711 WP No. 1397 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1397 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KANTHAMMA W/O.SHYAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT: NO.48, 1^ST CROSS, HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.CHETHAN.A.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, 594, 2^ND BLOCK, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶16

BHAVANI CONSULTANTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.2, 1^ST CROSS, OPPOSITE GANESH TEMPLE, HEGGANAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAGHUNATH.S,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45711 WP No. 1397 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

S/O.SHYAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri.Chethan.A.C., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Muthanna., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. When queried, counsel submits that a conscious decision is taken about withdrawal of the petition and if an order is passed, the petitioner will not seek for recalling the same or file a review petition.

¶28

The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner and the memo is placed on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:45711 WP No. 1397 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶33

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶34