Allowed

The State Bank of India and 2 Others v. Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

Kerala HC8 Nov 2011RP/583/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'le Justice C.K. Abdul Rehim allowed the review petition filed by respondents 4 to 6 of the underlying writ petition, W.P(C).No.29393 of 2010, due to a discrepancy regarding the disposal status of Ext.P10 representation. The judgment in the writ petition was recalled.

What did the court decide?

The writ judgment WP(C).29393/2010 dated 13.1.2011 is recalled; petitioner given liberty to challenge merits in appropriate proceedings.

The State Bank of India and 2 Others Vs Narniath… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 583 of 2011(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29393/2010

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6

¶9

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

¶10

1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, CALICUT MAIN BRANCH, CALICUT - 1 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE OFFICE, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶13

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA),

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3

¶15

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

¶16

1. NARNIATH PHARMACEUTICALS AND CHEMICALS PVT.LT.D, THAMPY ROAD, NORTH BEYPORE, CALICUT - 673 015, HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT FLAT NO.F1, BLOCK - 10, CHINTHAVALAP FLATS, RAM MOHAN ROAD, CALICUT - 673 004, REP.BY ITS MG.DIRECTOR, P.K.KERALA VARMA, S/O.LATE BALA RAMA VARMA.

¶17

¶18

RP.No. 583 of 2011(Y)

¶19

2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, BANKING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, JEEVAN DEEP, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELH 110 001.

¶20

3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT (R.P.C.D), CENTRAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 001.

¶21

4. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY, MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL SCALE AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶22

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶23

SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

RP.No. 583 of 2011(Y)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶29

ANNEX.1 COMMUNICATION DATED 3.1.2011

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶35

Review Petition No.583 of 2011 in W.P(C).No.29393 of 2010

¶36

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2011

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 6^th respondent (3^rd petitioner in the review petition) to consider and dispose of Ext.P10 representation, which was forwarded through Ext.P11 covering letter, by himself or through a designated officer. But it is pointed out that the said representation was already disposed of, even prior to the judgment. Hence the petitioners seek a review of the judgment.

¶39

Sri.Gopinath Menon, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent (writ petitioner) vehemently opposed the review petition. He pointed out various factors to contend that the representation in question was disposed of not in a proper manner which is sustainable in the eye of law.

¶40

Considering the fact that, merits of the decision taken by the 6^th respondent (3^rd review petitioner) cannot be considered in this review application, I am of the view that the

¶41

RP.583/11 in wpc.29393/10

¶42

-2-

¶43

1^st respondent (writ petitioner) can be given liberty to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings, if he is aggrieved.

¶44

Therefore the review petition is allowed and the

¶45

judgment in the writ petition, WP(C).29393/10 dt.13.1.2011 is hereby recalled.

¶46

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶47

okb

The State Bank of India and 2 Others v. Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Bank of India and 2 Others v. Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

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

Thomas George & Another Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.

P.Bharathan Vs City Union Bank Ltd. and 2 Others

Georgekutty Kunjeria & Another Vs the Corporation of Cochin & Others

Gracy Vs the Taluk Land Board

C.S.Sanal Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala and Others