Patna High Court - Orders
Prajun Kumar Karn vs The State Bank Of India And Ors on 23 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1095 of 2019
======================================================
Prajun Kumar Karn Son of Sri Arun Kumar Karn Resident of- Station Road,
Krishnapalli, Khuskibagh, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Bank Of India and Ors Through The Branch Manager,
Khushkibagh Branch, Purnea.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khushkibagh Branch, Purnea.
3. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Purnea.
4. The Astt. General Manager (RACPC), Regional Office, Purnea.
5. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of Inida, Head Office, Gandhi
Maidan, Patna.
6. Om Jai Real Care(OJRC), Pvt. Ltd(Recovery Agent), Madhepura, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Praveen, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL ORDER
8 23-09-20251. The Writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle ASHOK LEYLAND ECOMAT 1214 SMART bearing Registration No. BR-39P/7984, Engine No. FCZ202668, which was taken into illegal possession by the respondent-State bank of India through its recovery agent. Further, to handover the all original papers and the physical possession of the petitioner's Patna High Court CWJC No.1095 of 2019(8) dt.23-09-2025 2/2 vehicle in proper condition, as well as for compensation towards the loss of business and for the economical, physical and mental harassment to the petitioner.
2. At the outset, the Learned counsel for the petitioner reported to the Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid vehicle has already been released by the respondent-Bank and that the petitioner is regularly paying the installments.
3. As the grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed during pendency of the Writ petition, nothing remains for adjudication. Therefore, the Writ petition stands closed.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Amandeep/-
U