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 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.R.Purushothaman vs Indian Bank on 28 May, 2009

Author: H N Nagamohan Das

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

  L' BANGALORE ---- 560 094.

I W.P.'/74 18199

IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAIM, BAI€{§}';Ld}?EV  %  A

DATED THIS THE 28??' DAY__ o;?%MAckȎoti9   " '

BEFORE A %   
THE} HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ;s:AQA1§m§JAN"DAs
WRIT PETITION %1~::j';74%A1._§,'_<: goaé iggqgcmy

BETWEEN: -

 

1 sRI.R.PU?RU:§HoTHAM2§_N'«s  
S/O LATE"RAJ2§:,QOPAL" "  
AGED'AB01;T 451YI::_"   
N0. 10,. VASAI€TE'HA_'FILES 
GEI)DALAHALLI"  . .. % 

RMV 2ND~STA.GE,_ , 
BANG_ALORE_ --- 560 094.

  _SRI. R SRIPHHSAN 
 . LATERAJA GOPAL
    YEARS,
1?/AT  7%' 'A' MAIN ROAD,
 COLONY, RMV 233 STAGE EXTENSION,

... PETITIONERS

  %%%~f{B¥fsR £ --Kii'MAR & BHAT, ADVs.,)

0*W'*



2 W.P.'}'418!€}9

INDIAN BANK     '  

RMV 2ND STAGE, EXTENSION"BR'ANCH,'*  . 1 A

UMA COMPLEX,    

NEW BHEL ROAD,

BANGALORE -- 550 094  E E

EEEEY rrs GENERAL MAEWXGER;-» E 
   '. f " ~..__-._.L;~RESPONDEN"I'

TI-HS W.P. IS4F£LED;_UNDjER.4ARfFICLES 226 5; 227 OF
THE CONSTFPUTIOEEEQF INDIA PRAYINGVTO QUASH THE
ORDER DT. 1Q..2."2009~':i?ASS§I§;D gm 11.5.. -UNDER ORDER XVI
RULE 5 OF C.?,C.}_ EN 03 'N0; 5176x2003 AS PER ANX--E
BY THE xI1;4~xm;)I,. Cm  &"SEssIoNs JUDGE CCH
27 BANGALORE      E

  

THIS W3 coMtN'{}'  EdR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE MADE THE F'OI.LOWING:--

1éesgp¢>nci¢:;:;:{§ank filed O.S.No.6176/2003 against the

§_ '_g)§:1;itigncrs  recovery of money. The defence of the

 is that they have repaid the loan amount and

' ii'1*;<.é fhe131 bank manager by name Sriflinakaran issued no

4j_'€;bj§E£:tion certificate in this regard and the same was

9%"



3 W.P,?418!09

produced before the RTO. At the time of cxross-examination

of PW -1, the petitioners filed an application under Order'-.26

Ruie S of CPC to summon the then bank ~ V.

Sri.Bi11akaran. Under the impugled order,  

rejected the application filed by the pefitiexaers, -1

writ petitien.

2. Admittedly, SIi,}3i11a1<a.¥e;§;a. is an 'emp1r$yee of

respondent-bank. If for   v*2{eS;)ondent-bank

refuses to necessary witness, then the 'II? infimnce agaimt the bank. 1. the fiefiifionem camrnt compel tie '. to exeiiiiize a witnws. observation, I find no juaifiable " gr_ound "te with the impugzed order. Aecerdirgbr, ' :'ihe "w.fit__pw'fion is hereby rejected without reference to the

-- V ' ' - . re-spezicieiat. Sdl- g__ Judge