Dismissed

Gineesh v. State Bank of India and Another

Kerala HC25 Aug 2011RP/458/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed a review petition. Though the petitioner initially remitted money, subsequent conditions required further payment. The petitioner failed to produce proof of payment for the latest conditional sum, with the bank alleging a bounced cheque. The court held the petition was a frivolous attempt to delay eviction.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed.

Gineesh Vs State Bank of India and Another — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933

¶4

RP.No. 458 of 2011(D)

¶5

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10235/2011 Dated 26/05/2011

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

GINEESH N.B., S/O.BALAN, NARETHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUNPATTUKARA, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 021.

¶13

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, IRINGALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 021.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATHA,SC

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶18

RP.458/2011 in WP(C).NO. 10235 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances, this court was not inclined to entertain this review petition. However, on the basis of persuasive submissions made by the counsel, indulgence was shown to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession of the petitioner from the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting Rs.2,50,000/-. Pursuant to the said order issued on 1.7.2011 the petitioner had remitted the amount. When the matter came up for further consideration on 19.7.2011 the interim order was extended subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on or before 13.8.2011. When the matter was posted thereafter on 18.8.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the payment was already made. Since the counsel for the respondents disputed such statement, the petitioner was directed to produce proof regarding payment, if any effected in compliance with the order dated 19.7.2011.

¶22

RP.458/2011 in WP(C) .10235/2011 2

¶23

Today when the matter is taken up, there is no representation for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that on 16.8.2011 the petitioner had given a cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs, which was dishonored on presentation for the reason that there was no sufficient amounts in credit of the petitioner's account to honour the cheque.

¶24

Under the above mentioned circumstances I am of

¶25

the view that the petitioner is making frivolous attempt without any bonafides to get the action delayed indefinitely. Therefore the review petition is hereby dismissed.

¶26

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶27

pmn/

¶28

RP.458/2011 in WP(C) .10235/2011 3

Gineesh v. State Bank of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gineesh v. State Bank of India 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

Anil Kumar Vs S.Rajan and Others

Dinsil Lonappan Vs Canara Bank and Another

Joseph.J.Kuttikkattu Vs the Housing Development Finance Corporai

Sulficker Vs Uco Bank

Sulficker Vs Uco Bank

Reeja Anil P.N Vs P.Somarajan Pillai