In this review petition, the High Court of Kerala recalled its previous judgment directing the petitioner to pay outstanding dues to regularize a cash credit facility, as the respondent bank agreed to regularize the arrangement.
The judgment dated 29.03.2016 recalling the review petition in the same order is recalled by allowing the review petition.
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
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938
RP.NO. 339 OF 2016 (T) IN WP(C).11955/2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11955/2016 DATED 29-03-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
KURIAKO.T.P,S/O.KURUVILLA THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS THRIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE SOUTH MAZHUVANNUR P.O., KOLENCHERY PIN: 682 311
BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK KOLENCHERY, BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-682311
2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER -682311
BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANk
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. R.P.No.339 of 2016 in W.P(C).No.11955 of 2016
............................................................. Dated this the 8th day of April, 2016
O R D E R
The review petition is filed seeking a review of judgment dated 29.03.2016 to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay the total amount outstanding from him to the respondent bank as a condition for stay of recovery proceedings initiated against him by the respondent bank. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the respondent bank has indicated that they are willing to regularise the cash credit facility if the petitioner pays the overdue amount of Rs.7,18,978/- in lumpsum within a period of one month, and complies with the conditions insisted by the respondent bank for continuing the overdraft facility. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank also agrees to the said submission of the review petitioner. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the judgment dated 29.03.2016 can be recalled. Accordingly, I recall the
-2-
R.P.No.339 of 2016 in
W.P(C).No.11955 of 2016
judgment dated 29.03.2016 in W.P(C).No.11955 of 2016 by allowing the review petition.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/8.4.16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment directing payment of outstanding amount as a condition for stay can be recalled upon the bank's willingness to regularise the facility.
Kuriao K. T. P.
The South Indian Bank
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
