Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Akram vs The Branch Manager State Bank Of Mysore on 10 October, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO.767/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAMMED AKRAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O.SRI ABDUL SALAM,
2. SMT. YSMEETH TAJ,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O.SRI MOHAMMED AKRAM,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.8,
1ST CROSS, HEBBAL MILL,
GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 032,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THIER
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY,
SRI SAFEER AHMED,
S/O.LATE ABDUL ZAZEER,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8, 1ST CROSS,
HEBBAL MILL, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K.T, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
GANGANAGAR BRANCH,
NO.320, KRISHNA BUILDING,
BELLARY ROAD,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
2
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
CUSTOMER CARE AND
SERVICE DEPARTMENT,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
RESERVE BANK BUILDING,
NO.10/3/8, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.S.MAHABALESHWAR, ADV. FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 & 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY V/O
DATED.07.10.2013)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
29/08/2013 PASSED IN W.P.47695/12, ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of the order dated 29.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.47695/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In my opinion, the review of the order would not be necessary except for making certain clarification 3 as a further indication of the intention of the order dated 29.08.2013.
4. In that regard while disposing the writ petition, the contention as putforth by the respondents was noticed with regard to the willingness of the respondents to issue certified copies of the documents since the originals are not traceable and to pay the admitted compensation that is referred to in the said order. The petitioners presently bring to the notice of this Court that the order has recorded that the certified copies have already been issued and the compensation as agreed has already been paid. However, the fact situation is that the respondents have undertaken to comply with the same, but factually the copies are yet to be delivered and the admitted compensation is yet to be disbursed to the petitioners. In this regard, it is needless to mention that when the right of the parties has already been taken note in the said order, if factually the said copies have not been issued, the 4 respondents would have to comply with the same and compensation be paid.
5. Therefore, a clarification is issued that the observations in the order would not be deemed as if the respondents have already complied with the same. The respondents shall therefore issue certified copies of the documents to the petitioner and also pay the admitted compensation to the petitioner. While issuing the certified copy, an endorsement shall also be made on the certified copies that the copies are being issued in lieu of the originals that has been misplaced by the respondent-Bank. The compliance in that regard shall be made within a period of four weeks from this day.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST/BMS