This order dismisses a writ petition as infructuous because the petitioner had paid the entire amount due to the respondent bank during the pendency of the petition.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.24448 of 2015
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)
When the matter is called for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has paid the entire amount due to the respondent-Bank and hence the cause in the writ petition has become infructuous.
2. Recording the said submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 03.09.2015. Msr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.24448 of 2015
03.09.2015 Msr
Petitioner
Respondent-Bank
R. SUBHASH REDDY
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
