Allowed

Jayaprakash Balakrishnan v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020RFA/330/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the instant application permitting appellants to withdraw the regular first appeal (RFA No.330 of 2015) and the underlying suit (O.S.No.409/2012). The withdrawal is without prejudice to rights against the builder, with fee refund directives issued.

What did the court decide?

Allowed I.A.No.1/2020 permitting withdrawal of the appeal and suit, vacated the impugned judgment and decree, and directed refund of court fee.

Jayaprakash Balakrishnan Vs Icici Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

RFA.No.330 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 409/2012 DATED 12-01-2015 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1 JAYAPRAKASH BALAKRISHNAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O.C.N BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRIVIDYA, KMV ROAD,KOTTAYAM MAIN P.O, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER G JAYACHANDRA RAJ S/O.GOPALAPILLAI,PARAMESWARATH HOUSE,PANACHIKAVU P.O,CHANGANACERRY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 ANJU RAVINDRAN W/O. JAYAPRAKASH BALAKRISHNAN, KMV ROAD,KOTTAYAM MAIN P.O, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER G JAYACHANDRA RAJ S/O.GOPALAPILLAI,PARAMESWARATH HOUSE,PANACHIKAVU P.O,CHANGANACERRY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶13

1 ICICI BANK LTD

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,BANDRA(EAST MUMBAI) 400 001

¶15

2 BRANCH MANAGER

¶16

ICICI BANK,CSI ASSENSION BUILDING,KOTTAYAM,KERALA 686 001 3 METRO CORP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, REPRESENTED BY MR. DEEPAK KRISHNAAPPA AGED 50 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S/O KRISHNA APPA, METRO CORP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD NO17, JAYA MAHAL ROAD BANGALURE 60046.

¶17

***(THE THIRD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.9.2018 IN IA 5/18.)**

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R1-2 BY ADV. A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶19

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RFA.No.330 OF 2015

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Sri.P.K.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that I.A.No.1/2020 has been filed seeking liberty to withdraw this appeal as well as the suit before the Sub Court, Kottayam.

¶24

I notice that the suit filed by the appellants, namely O.S.No.409/2012, has been dismissed by the Trial Court against which this appeal has been preferred.

¶25

Sri.P.K.Ramkumar, submits that his clients are now advised that instead of proceeding against the Bank, it would be better for them to seek remedies against promoter of the Project and their builders.

¶26

Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank submits that his client has already informed the appellants of their agreement to settle the loan liability, but that if they are not interested in doing so, he does not stand in the way of this Court allowing the request in I.A.No.1/2020; however, praying that no liberty may be reserved to them to file a fresh suit against his client.

¶27

I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the prayer made in the aforementioned I.A. The

¶28

RFA.No.330 OF 2015

¶29

¶30

appellants pray that they may be permitted to withdraw O.S.No.409/2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Kottayam and this R.F.A “without prejudice to their rights for realizing the financial loss sustained in connection with the Villa purchase agreement and subsequent developments with the builder”, who is a 3^rd additional defendant in the suit.

¶31

Pertinently, Sri.Lal K. Joseph, does not oppose this plea nor has there been any representation on behalf of the 3^rd respondent at any stage in this appeal until now.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, I allow I.A.No.1/2020 and permit the petitioner to withdraw this appeal; and consequently vacate the judgment and decree in O.S.No.409/2012, with a resultant order that the said suit will also stand dismissed as having been withdrawn.

¶33

The Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court Fee on this Memorandum of appeal to the appellants, on them making an appropriate application; however, clarifying that the Court Fee paid in the Court below will not be eligible for such refund.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Jayaprakash Balakrishnan v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash Balakrishnan v. Icici Bank Ltd.

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

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Thomas M.Thomas

K. P. Mohanan Vs Chandra Mohan

K.P.Mohanan, Vs Chandra Mohan

Basheer.M.Picha Vs B.M.Rafi

P.K.Raveendran Vs Smt.Selmabeevi

B.M.Rafi Vs Basheer M.Picha