Disposed
Mr.Biju T. v. State Bank of India
Kerala HCWP(C)/12136/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No.12136 of 2014 (N)
PETITIONER:
MR.BIJU.T,S/O.LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, THAMARASSERY VEEDU,VILAYUR WEST POST, PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD-679309.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER, RASMECCC,STATE BANK BUILDING, E.C.ROAD,PALAKKAD-678001.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC BRANCH,PALAKKAD-678001.
R1-R2 BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P(C). No. 12136 of 2014
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayers;
Court on 05.11.2014, the following order was passed;
“The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank seeks for a short time more to get instructions with regard to the valuation of the property and the amount to be satisfied for causing release of one of the three items of properties. It is also pointed out that, the respondent Bank is ready to have 'private sale', if any prospective purchaser is brought to the doors of the Bank to effect the sale with the consent and involvement of the Bank.
Post next week.”
3. When the matter came up for further consideration on
27.11.2014, it was submitted from the part of the respondent
WP(c). No.12136 of 2014
2
Bank that an OTS facility had already been declared and if the petitioner wanted to avail the benefit thereunder, a sum of `9.26 lakhs had to be paid on or before 31.12.2014. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner wants to avail the said benefit and seeks for permission to withdraw the writ petition.
The submission is recorded and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn
Biju.T
State Bank of India
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court