Partly allowed

Surendran v. Uco Bank

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016FAO/250/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original suit against a bank and an individual, the appellant challenged the dismissal of an interlocutory application. The High Court held the trial court's findings legal. While dismissing the appeal, the Court clarified that the suit will be tried without being influenced by observations made in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, but the court clarifies that the suit shall be disposed of without reference to the impugned observations.

Surendran Vs Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶5

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶6

F.A.O.No. 250 of 2014

¶7

(Against the order passed in I.A.No.354/12 in O.S.36/12 on the files of the Sub Cort, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.12.12)

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

SURENDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, KOTTAMAM PARASUVAIKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU

¶11

ADV.J.NARAYANAPILLAI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶13

UCO BANK

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, OVERBRIDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

REPRESENTED BY MANAGER ITS BRANCH MANAGER 695 001.

¶16

AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶17

UCO BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, OVERBRIDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶18

REPRESENTED BY MANAGER ITS BRANCH MANAGER 695 001.

¶19

VIJAYAMOHAN, AGED 57 YEARS,

¶20

S/O.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, KESAVAMANDIRAM, THALIYAL BALARAMAPURAM PO, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501

¶21

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶22

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM

¶23

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)

¶24

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶26

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

¶27

F.A.O.No.250 of 2014

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Antony Dominic, J.

¶31

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.36/12 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court in I.A.354/12, whereby the said I.A. was dismissed.

¶32

We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶33

Despite the detailed arguments that were addressed, having gone through the order, we find that the prima facie conclusions of the court below are perfectly legal and do not merit interference in the appeal. Therefore, we do not see any reason to entertain the appeal. However, we do find that certain observations has been made by the trial court and in view of the apprehension of the appellant that these observations made might influence the final adjudication of the suit,

¶34

F.A.O.No.250 of 2014

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

we clarify that the suit shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations contained in the order impugned in this appeal.

¶37

Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD

JUDGE

jes

Surendran v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran v. Uco Bank

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

K.Anilkumar Vs the Investment Corporation

Noushad Vs Basheer

Mathew @ Mathew Vs T.S.Madhavan

Viji P Issac Vs E S Jose

Antu A.D Vs State of Kerala

Kshemavilasom Kuri Company Vs Shanmughanandhan