Dismissed

The Chief Manager, v. M.Jeyakumar

Madras HC27 Aug 2024WA(MD)/1706/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Bank against a Single Judge order. The Court held that the appeal was infructuous as the academic period for the loan had become over, rendering the case without substance.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed as infructuous; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

The Chief Manager, Vs M.Jeyakumar — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD).No.12387 of 2018

¶8

1.The Chief Manager, RO Tuticorin, Indian Overseas Bank, Retail Loan Department, Regional Office, Tuticorin.

¶9

2.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Narikudi Branch (0746), Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants .Vs. M.Jeyakumar ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order in W.P(MD).No.10867 of 2017 dated 26.07.2018.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J. )

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the period for which the loan sought for itself is over and therefore, nothing survies in this appeal.

¶17

A perusal of the writ affidavit, it is seen that the respondent applied for educational loan for the academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, however the appellants rejected the application vide proceedings in RO/RL/02/2017-2018, dated 27.04.2017. Challenging the same, the respondent filed a petition in W.P(MD).No.10867 of 2017 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing, quashed the order passed by the appellants in RO/RL/02/2017-2018, dated 27.04.2017 and directed the appellants to sanction the educational loan to the respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellants are before this Court.

¶18

When the matter came up for hearing, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

¶19

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018

¶21

Since the period for loan sought for itself has become infructuous and considering the change of circumstances, nothing survives for further consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

(P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 27.08.2024

¶23

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk

¶24

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018

¶26

P.VELMURUGAN,J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶27

Rmk

¶28

W.A(MD).No.1706 of 2018

¶29

27.08.2024

¶30

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Chief Manager, v. M.Jeyakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager, v. M.Jeyakumar

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

V.Sundarrajan, Vs the Management, Thoothukudi

M/S.Sec Services Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

J.Kennady Vs M.Manimegalai

M.Muthiah, Vs the District Registrar

M.Raj Mohamed Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajkumar, Vs The Commissioner