Allowed

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank v. Sugunasekaran

Kerala HC9 Oct 2020RP/714/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition arising from a writ petition, the Kerala High Court allowed the review and recalled the original judgment because the petition had been disposed of without affording an opportunity to the third respondent in the writ petition to place his case.

What did the court decide?

Reviewed petition allowed; judgment dated 24.08.2020 recalled; matter posted after ten days.

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank Vs Sugunasekaran — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.714 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16162/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2020 IN WP(C) 16162/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) :

¶8

PERUMATTY SERVICE CO-OP BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANDITHAVALAM P.O, PATTANCHERY, PALAKKAD 678 534

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SHRI.SREEKUMAR S

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4 IN W.P.(C):

¶11

1 SUGUNASEKARAN

¶12

AGED 44 YEARS S/O. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, MOOPAN HOUSE, NANNIYOD, PALAKKAD-678 534

¶13

2 JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), O/O. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD P.O, PALAKKAD 678 001

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), O/O. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD-678 101

¶15

4 SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, PERUMATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP, PERUMATTY, CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD-678 101

¶16

SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SARATH MS, STANDING COUNSEL

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RP.No.714 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16162/2020 2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review judgment dated

¶21

24.8.2020 in W.P.(C).No. 16162 of 2020.

¶22

Essentially, the submission is that the petition was disposed

¶23

of without affording an opportunity to the review petitioner, who is the

¶24

3rd respondent in the writ petition, to put forth his case.

¶25

There appears to be some merit in the submission.

¶26

Having regard to the facts, this petition will stand allowed

¶27

and the judgment dated 24.08.2020 will stand recalled.

¶28

Post the matter after ten days.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

IAP

¶33

RP.No.714 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16162/2020 3

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank v. Sugunasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank v. Sugunasekaran

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

Shaji Kuruvila Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Gracy Jose Vs the Tahsildar

Jose K.J., Vs the Tahsildar

Selvet Jerome Vs State of Kerala

Kallukadavu Muslim Jama- Ath Vs the District Collector

Valsamma Mathew Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.