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 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Gorakh Nath Upadhaya vs State Bank Of India, Patna & Anr. on 26 November, 2014

Author: Ramesh Kumar Datta

Bench: Ramesh Kumar Datta

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2670 of 2014
                                                        In
                                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22045 of 2012
                   ======================================================
                   Gorakh Nath Upadhaya, son of Late Kanhaiya Upadhya, Resident of
                   village- Baina, P.O. Kewdhi, P.S. Kudra, District- Kaimur
                                                                              .... .... Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                   1. State Bank of India, Patna
                   2. Ajeet Sud, the General Manager, State Bank of India, Head Office- West
                   of Gandhi Maidan, Patna
                   3. Prabhu Nath Ram, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Agriculture
                   Development Branch, Bhabhua, District- Bhabhua
                   4. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
                                                                            .... .... Opp.Parties.
                   ======================================================
                   Appearance :
                   For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh
                   For the Respondent/s       : Mr. Mukund Jee
                   ======================================================
                   CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
                   ORAL ORDER

5     26-11-2014

It is stated by learned counsel for the State Bank of India and admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tractor has since been handed over to the petitioner though not on 8.11.2014 but on 11.11.2014 with respect to which certain allegations and counter allegations are also being made by the respective parties.

Be that as it may, by the act of handing over the tractor, it appears that the contempt has been purged by the opposite parties of the State Bank of India.

The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/-

U