Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M H Nasreen vs Karnataka Bank on 24 November, 2025

                                             2025:KER:90307




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

  MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA,

                           1947

                  WP(C) NO. 27813 OF 2025



PETITIONER:

         M H NASREEN
         AGED 24 YEARS
         D/O: MOHAMMED HANEEF,
         SONKAL HOUSE,
         UPPALA,
         KASARAGOD,
         KERALA,
         PIN - 671322


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.SADIQALI. M
         SHRI.MUHAMMAD SABIK
         SHRI.MOHAMED SHAFI M.



RESPONDENTS:

    1    KARNATAKA BANK
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
         MANGALPADY BRANCH,
         VAIDYAR COMPLEX,
         KAIKAMBA JUNCTION,
         UPPALA POST,
         MANGALPADY,
                                                    2025:KER:90307


WP(C) No.27813 OF 2025

                                  2


            KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
            KERALA,
            PIN - 671322

    2       STATION HOUSE OFFIVER
            ADYAR POLICE STATION 56,
            LB ROAD,
            THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY,
            ADYAR,
            CHENNAI,
            TAMIL NADU,
            PIN - 600020



     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   24.11.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:90307


WP(C) No.27813 OF 2025

                                3



                         JUDGMENT

1. On 26/08/2025, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that steps have been taken. This Court directed the Registry to verify the same, making it clear that in case the petitioner fails to take steps or the process received is defective, Registry to post the matter again.

2. The Registry has reported that the petitioner has not taken steps against the 1st respondent.

3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for default.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms