COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
The review petition is disposed of; the writ petition is closed with the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies against the bank's order on the representation if so advised.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938
RP.No. 178 of 2016 (G) IN WP(C).31664/2015 --------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31664/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-10-2015
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1. INDIAN BANK PALAKKAD BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALAKKAD.678001.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTIN OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT), INDIAN BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR,MALABAR FORT,KANDATH COMPLEX, OFF.G.BROAD, PALAKKAD 678001.
BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT:
1. A. SUBRAMANIAN
S/O.P.AMBALA MOOTHAN, AGED 62 YEARS,HOUSE.NO.2/81, NEW KALPATHY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN 678001
2. MADHAVAN NAIR,S/O.APPU, CHARALASSERY HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM POST, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM 679 678.
BY SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sm
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
R.P. No.178 of 2016 in
W.P.(C).No.31664 of 2015
ORDER
The respondents in the writ petition are the review petitioners. This review petition is filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 21.10.2015, which directs the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation, that was preferred by the petitioners, within a stipulated time. In the review petition, the review petitioners would point out that, even before the date of the judgment in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had passed orders on Ext.P4 representation and therefore, there was no necessity for considering the said representation again. Taking note of the said submission, I review the judgment dated 21.10.2015 and close the writ petition leaving it open to the writ petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies against the order passed by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P4 representation, if so advised.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sm/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment directing the bank to consider a representation must be reviewed given that the bank had already passed an order on the representation prior to the original judgment.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
