Dismissed

Mr. Rajan Expedit v. Indian Overseas Bank

Madras HC5 Jan 2015OSA/59/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the original side appeal as withdrawn. The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal and pursue remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including seeking exclusion of the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the filing miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; filing miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mr. Rajan Expedit Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 05.01.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M. SUNDRESH

¶5

Original Side Appeal No. 59 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014

¶6

Mr. Rajan Expedit Partner Rajan Picture palace 43-b-7, Zackaria Street Mela Kamarajapuram Nagercoil 629 001. .. Appellant vs.

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank rep. by its Senior Manager Meenakshipuram Branch Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk Kanyakumari District.

¶8

Mr. Gopi Mohan

¶9

Mr. Vijayaraghavan The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai.

¶10

Mr. C. David .. Respondents ---

¶11

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order and decree dated 28.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Application No.4677 of 2012 in C.S.D. No.18967 of 2012 on the file of this Court which was preferred to grant leave to sue the Applicant/Plaintiff to institute this suit against Respondent 1 and 3/defendant 1 and 3 along with suit property befoe this hon'ble Court.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr. P.V. Sanjeev for R1 Mr. V. Vargees Amalraja for R4 ---

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal and states that he will pursue the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law and seek exclusion of the time period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, having pursued diligently the remedy before this Court.

¶17

2.The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Asst.Registrar(CS III) Dt.,09.0.2015

/True Copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

ATR

To;

The Sub Asst.Registrar, Original Side,High Court,Madras.

¶25

+1cc to Mr. P.J. Perumal,Advocate SR.NO.49 +1cc to Mr. M. Aravind Subramanian,Advocate SR.No.155 +1cc to Mr. P.V. Sanjeev,Advocate sr.No.52 TEJ(CO)

¶26

ka 09/01

¶27

O.S.A. No. 59 of 2013

¶28

05.01.2015

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr. Rajan Expedit v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rajan Expedit v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.v.Bharathi, Vs The Director of Elementary

S.Murugan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.B.Muthulakshmi, Vs The Secretary

Dr.Emil Mathew, Vs the Union of India

K.Thangavel, Vs The District Collector

Life Style Housing Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu