Allowed

Chief Manager and Others v. Daniel v.George and Another

Kerala HC7 Apr 2008RP/376/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the review petition filed by respondents against a writ petition. The court deleted a prior observation granting permission to remove items, noting those items were hypothecated to the bank. No counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed; previous submission recorded in paragraph 2 allowing removal of movable items is deleted.

Chief Manager and Others Vs Daniel v.George and Another — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

RP.No. 376 of 2008(H)

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4066/2008 Dated 11/03/2008 ....................................

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

¶8

------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BRANCH KONNI.

¶10

2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BRANCH KONNI.

¶11

3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

4. GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, PUJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS:

¶15

-----------------------------------

¶16

1. DANIEL V.GEORGE, VALUTHUDIL HOUSE, KONNI P.O

¶17

2. ROSAMMA DANIEL, VALUTHUNDIL HOUSE, KONNI P.O.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI. N.K. MOHANLAL

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 7/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

Dated this the 7^th April, 2008.

¶23

This Review Petition has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition.

¶24

At the time when the writ petition was disposed of, based on the instruction that was given to the counsel, submission was made that it will be open to the petitioner to remove the movable items that are available in the mortgaged premises. However, subsequently on verification it has come to the knowledge of the respondents that these movable items are also hypothecated to the bank. When the writ petition came up for orders on 31.3.2008 counsel entered appearance on behalf of the writ petitioners and sought for time.

¶25

Today, when the matter came up for admission there is no counter affidavit filed. Even otherwise I have no reason to think

¶26

RP No.376/08 in WPC No.4066/08

¶27

- 2 -

¶28

that the facts now projected by the respondents in the Review Petition that the movable items are hypothecated to the bank is incorrect for any reason. Therefore, the Review Petition stands allowed and the submission recorded in paragraph 2 of the judgment that the respondent bank had no objection in the petitioner removing the movable items, will stand deleted.

¶29

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶30

jan/-

Chief Manager and Others v. Daniel v.George and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager and Others v. Daniel v.George and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.v.Francis Vs P.G.Baby

A.C.Jose Vs Rta, Alappuzha & Ors.

Aboobacker Vs the Registering Authority

Mohammed Ameen Vs Secretary,Regional Transport Authority

Rev.Fr.Paulose Thomas Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Muhammedkutyy Vs State