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]

Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Samiullah vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2015

Author: Vikash Jain

Bench: Vikash Jain

           Patna High Court CWJC No.1454 of 2014 (2) dt.27-10-2015




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1454 of 2014
                       ======================================================
                       Md. Samiullah Son Of Late Nurul Hoda Resident Of Village -
                       Mohammadpur, Daniyalpur, Block, P.O. And P.S. Teghra, Distt. -
                       Begusarai

                                                                               .... ....   Petitioner
                                                             Versus

                       1. Central Bank of India through Its General Manager, Mumbai
                       2. The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai
                       3. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna
                       4. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa
                       5. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Teghra, District - Begusarai

                                                                     .... .... Respondents
                       ======================================================
                       Appearance :
                       For the Petitioner/s :   None
                       For the Respondent/s   : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha
                       ======================================================
                       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
                       ORAL ORDER

2       27-10-2015

None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on the other hand submits that the writ petition has no merit and asmuch as the prayer for quashing the letter dated 26.11.2013 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 26,938/- is misconceived as the petitioner himself admits having taken a housing loan of Rs. 25,000/- in the year 2005, but repaid only Rs. 4,000/- on 23.12.2005 and Rs. 1,000/- on 13.03.2007.

3. Be that as it may and in view of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U