High Court Karnataka High Court

Indusind Bank Limited vs State Bank Of India on 3 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Indusind Bank Limited vs State Bank Of India on 3 July, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath


-L _
IN was HIGH coma? OF KAREAEAKA Am a5mag3§ag L’

mamas @313 THE 3″‘mA3 or Jv;$;uzeé9~i T

Basafig _
‘ma EiO1€’BLF: Mr. Jusarzfifiys.
WRIT FE’Z£’I’.E’ION N;<:;'v»J:§'14O/éI3'£3'fV
32-rsazmms; ' A' E

zmausim mm: L*rB.," .

& Banking Capany igqcxpo:ate&g’*°
flnfisr the prgvisighs cg t§aV
Campanies”figt},haV;ng7;ts”V
Registerad;6£fida»atffléfii,
Gen» R’Qaf(if~. cantcmmaent,
9une+411″e11 afid she amnngét

Its vaxgaus hxanghas at ahanéigarh
Ané fierein R/by its Manager
M.v.s.sudh1r;- *’ *~’ yazzmzoxaa

{§y’§fiv0§at¢”$ri;S.Ganash Sheneyi

,£§§E

‘ ~i,=$téfi% E§nfi}of Xndia,

A1§ Banking Cdmany constituted under

gTh9:3t§£é Bank of Infiia Aat,1955 having
itggcsrpcrate Center at Madame Gama Roafi,
gag-igmn Point, Zwizmfbai-408 921. kid its

‘*:,Locé Hea§ Qffiae at Na.i$, St. Marks Raad,

._ Eangaiore and is repxesaated by itfi
“Chiaf Manager éhaaounts}.

‘ 2′;%w Qm.Ezakash @ Sanjiv Sahoa 3!e

Ram.?arshad; major,

Rio House 50.12383, Secter 28~B,
Chandigarh. .. Kfifififififififfi

(Advocate sri.S.Krishnaswamy for R-1)
{R~2 .. Netice dispensed with}

u-uw–:4IIt>nwnui

32:21:15 Writ Petition is filéci 22’: ”

of The Constitution of Inéia'”to7 q§ash ‘the &ifip§gaed

order ciated 2732.200’: paszsed ¢:)n=– m _v–‘:.r:-iléd arias:

sec..15z caf cm) in o.s.:«o.ee2’a/2093; $.32’.-._t1a.ve =:;f.:;*::;-.». bf the
Court of fiddl. City Civil &V$é$sions,Jfiége; Bangalore

Vida Annexurewfi. W ._ _» __

This Fetition Vi§T_cfiin§u*¢n *£er preliminary
hearing in B–Grouy thisA day; ,thaaVCpurt made the

following: A_ ,w,_x

x..a;. ‘r_£:.=. _1e’ci1’i;$$d¢z~.<_L$c§§£:..151 cpc by the patitioner

has been réfiefitad hfzfihé court belaw, challenging the

_5ame,.§%esént pétit;Qa is filed.

2: f1'_'£ié– : "'«..§h:§r1;v"_j.. questiczzxz that arises fer the

.v.,¢onsidg§tat§¢;:*'1«.V_ 5:6 this court in this petition is

=_vfi§ther & party can make an appliaation for re–apening

"«fihé'§$é$ to addnce further evidence when the matter is

_::éa:;-Q. fully and posted for judgnzent.

u *3{' fieaxé the counsel far the parties.

('V

4. In View of the judgment of nivisiéxf fB eri.ch

this court in RAEEYA B: KASSIM m; vs; ins c§§fizgY wigs 1
cousumaa EIKARCXAL SERVICE Lrnf, E: :.Rf, 2904″ kggfia

2215;, petition has to be rég§¢:ed.

5 . Accordingly , this V §3€:t.it5Lfir;_ t:i.’:.-é V

sa/-

” Judge

.%jZ;: ‘¥«n?s%£§’