Dismissed

Kumari Aredla Varsha v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC24 Aug 2021WP/6728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a bank's letter and seeking permission to operate a locker, the High Court of Telangana allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition upon receiving an assurance from the bank to resolve the grievance, granting liberty to pursue remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to pursue remedies. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Kumari Aredla Varsha Vs The State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

,/\

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO} ' -' iSp""i"t Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ONNo.6728 oF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Kumari Aredla^{Varsha, D/o.Late.Aredla Bal Reddy' Hindu Aoed about19 Years'} occ. Student,^{ruo.H.ruo.g-i5r)i,"Eorriolo nodd, onatr"iar [t4andal,Ranga} Reddv District.

¶9

2 il::iJt1il; Baba Balram^{Reddv'S/o Late'AredlaBal Reddv' Hind^u' Aged} ;ffi;i' i7-V"io,-^{r,rrinoi, oii.Siuoent,Represented bv his Guardian} Smt. G. Sarala,^{W/o.Sri.G Ananil;"i-"ddy, Ag"q} :Oq'l^{47 Y ears' Occ Housewife'} ilo. n1.rts- G^r li,^{ro utaoaonoaa, GnaitesirtVlandal,Ranga ReddYrDit5$=*a}

¶10

AND

¶11

ThestateBankoflndia'NarayanagudaBranch-03086,BesideTajMahalHotel, HvOeianiO-S00029.^{Represented by its Branch Managet} ...*rrroNDENTs

¶12

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a writ, order^{or directionmore particularly one in the natureof writ of} N4andamus declaring^{the impugned Letterdated23-07-2O19issuedby Respondent} insisting for^{production of legal representation to operatethe locker No,0-2as illegal,} arbitrary and set^{aside the same. consequently, to directthe Respondent to permit} the Petitioners to^{operate the locker No.0-2 in State Bank of lndia,Narayanguda} Branch(3086), HYderabad-500029

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

pe,tition tr"oer section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent to^{permit the Petitionersto operate the locker No.0-2 in StateBank} of India, Narayanguda^{Branch(3086), Hyderabad-500029, Pendingdisposal of the} above Writ Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARUN KUMAR SATYAVOLU

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

TI{F, HoN'LILE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} wRll-PE'IrTrO N No.6728 OF 202-l

¶19

0t{l)t-R:

¶20

When the rnatter is taken up^{for hearing, counsel lor the} petitioners has intbrnred the Coun^{that the respondentBank issued a} letter clatccl l2 )E,202 l.^{wherebyassuranceis given by the respondent} thar rhe grievance of^{the petitionerswill be resolved and advisedthe} petitioners to rvithdraw^{the case. Therefore, counsel contended that} the petitioners be^{permittedto withdraw the writ petition witha liberty} to the petitioners to^{pursuetheir remedies in accordancewith law'}

¶21

In view of the^{aforesaid submissions,this writ petition is} dismissed as withdrawn^{giving liberty to the petitioners to pursuetheir} remedies in accot'dance^{withlaw. No orderas to costs'}

¶22

I)ending Iniscellaneous^{petitions, if any, shallstand closed'}

¶23

//rRUE coPY// ^=38?i'[f[+^[lt"]iH .ecrroib4rcen

¶24

To,

¶25

I 3 l3^{3 3 I 3 il iil',""ft i J : i'S:|,:*'tlx?:'x' # ?"'31 q} j Two CD CoPies' i one SPare^CoPY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410812021

ORDER

WP.No.6728 of^i>-021

E S rt6
1
a.
f,o
24 s !P 2021 o
-I"
*
+ r') ::cl. .-a

¶32

DISMISSING TI.IE WRIT^{PETITION,AS WITHDRAWN,} WITHOUT COS'|S.

¶33

.dt.Ix
6)

Kumari Aredla Varsha v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Aredla Varsha v. The State Bank of India

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

M/s. B.V.K. Multiplex Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Katyayani Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others

Anil, Kumar Denduluri, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. G.G.Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Laurel Private Iti and another Vs The Director General and 2 others

K.Venugopal, Hyderabad Vs Sr.Div.Manager, Lic, Hyderabad and Anr.