Dismissed

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

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011RP/728/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled the order dismissing a review petition after new counsel submitted unpleaded facts. Permission was granted to withdraw the review petition, dismissing it as withdrawn, while preserving the petitioner's right to seek statutory remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Review Petition was granted and the petition was dismissed, but the petitioner retains the right to approach the appropriate authority under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Ac

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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 728 of 2011(E)

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32041/2010 Dated 22/03/2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

1. THOMAS GEORGE, MODIYIL HOUSE, KUMBANAD.P.O, KUMBANAD-689N547

¶10

2. JESSY THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS GEORGE, -DO-

¶11

BY ADVS. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, SIB HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, P.B.NO.28, THRISSUR -680 001.

¶15

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, BRANCH, THIRUVALLA, P.B NO. 27, NEAR S.C.S JUNCTION THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, SC., S.I.B.

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

svs

¶20

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶21

Review Petition No.728 of 2011

¶22

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2011

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Before signing the order dismissing the review petition the new counsel engaged by the petitioner appeared and submitted certain facts. On that basis the order disposing the review petition is recalled and the review petition is restored to files.

¶25

In the review petition, an interim application is filed as I.A.No.680/2011 seeking permission to withdraw the review petition without prejudice to his rights to institute a fresh writ petition. I do not find any reason to permit the petitioner to institute any fresh writ petition. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there were certain facts which could not be brought to the notice of this court when the writ petition was filed and those facts on merits if agitated before the appropriate authority will grant sufficient relief to the petitioner.

¶26

Considering all the above aspects permission is granted to withdraw the Review Petition and the Review

¶27

RP.728/11

¶28

¶29

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, I make it clear that observation contained in the judgment of the writ petition dt.22.3.2011, will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking statutory remedy as provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, if sustainable under law.

¶30

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶31

okb

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Georgekutty Kunjeria & Another Vs the Corporation of Cochin & Others

Madhavi Vs State of Kerala

The State Bank of India and 2 Others Vs Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

Gracy Vs the Taluk Land Board

C.S.Sanal Vs State of Kerala