Dharmendra Mishra v. The Regional Manager, State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3168 of 2016 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13399 of 2006 ====================================================== Dharmendra Mishra, Son of Late Girija Dutta Mishra, C/o Awadhesh Kumar, Shashtri Nagar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Region-2, Patna, namely Bela Rajesh Khosla.

2.

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur namely Mr. Binod Kumar Gupta. 3.

The Branch Manager, State of Bank of India, Munger, District- Munger, namely Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra.

4.

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Barbigha, District Sheikhpura, Namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

5.

The Deputy General Manager, Appellate Authority, Zonal Office Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur, namely Mr. Binod Kumar Gupta. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the SBI :

Mr. K. K. Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-07-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') has been heard.

2. In terms of the earlier orders of the Court, supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Bank on 15.07.2019. Learned counsel submitted that copy of the same has been served on learned counsel for the petitioner.

Patna High Court MJC No.3168 of 2016 dt.23-07-2019 2/2

3. Learned counsel for the Bank drew the attention of the Court to the averment made in the affidavit as also the material brought on record to show that the Bank has calculated the amount of interest till 30th June, 2019 and the same has also been credited into the account of the petitioner on 12.07.2019.

4. In the aforesaid background and taking note of the fact that neither anybody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor there is any rejoinder to the counter affidavit denying such payment, the Court can only presume that the payments have been made.

5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T