Petitioner withdrew a writ petition challenging a bank's penal charges, conceding the bank is private and not amenable under Article 12. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
contested writ petition under Article 226 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file civil suit; interim relief application disposed as infructuous.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36222 of 2012 Dated: 23.11.2012
Between:
Mohd. Ismail and others.
.. Petitioners.
And
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Having its registered office at N.36-38A, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 and another.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Gopal G Naik
Counsel for the Respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
After arguing the case, Mr. Gopal G Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly conceded that respondent No.1 is a private Bank and, therefore, it does not answer the description of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for availing the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has, therefore, requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to his clients to file a civil suit.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.46019 of 2012 filed for interim relief is
disposed of as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23.11.2012 v v
Mohd. Ismail and others.
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and another.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
