Petitioner sought writ under Article 226 for one-time loan settlement. Court found petition became infructuous due to successful endorsement made by petitioner and dismissed it.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
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.
WP(MD)No.16243 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.16243 of 2017
S.Damodharan ... Petitioner
Vs
The Chief Manager cum Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Car Street, Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2017 submitted in person relating to one time settlement of the loan within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
For petitioner : Mr.J.Muneer Khan For Respondent : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar
ORDER
When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that
1/3
WP(MD)No.16243 of 2017
the writ petition has become infructuous and he has also made an endorsement.
2.Recording the above submission and the endorsement,
this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dimissed.
26.06.2023
dsk
To
The Chief Manager cum Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Car Street, Karur District.
2/3
WP(MD)No.16243 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
WP(MD)No.16243 of 2017
26.06.2023
3/3
S.Damodharan
The Chief Manager cum Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Car Street, Karur District
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
