Patna High CourtC. REV./386/2017dismissed

Md. Mansur Alam And ANR v. The State Bank Of India And ORS

2018-01-08The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.386 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Md. Mansur Alam, son of late Manzur Alam

2. Bilqees Begum, wife of Md. Mansur Alam, both resident of Mohalla Samanpura, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Shastrinagar Town and District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Bank Of India, a Body Corporate, constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its corporate centre at Madamcama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and its Local Head Office at Gandhi Maidan, Patna 80001 and amongst one of its branches known as State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Patliputra, Patna through its Chief Manager

2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, premises & Estate Local Head Office, Patna

3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Patliputra, Patna

4. The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna

5. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, Both At Central Government Office Complex, Digha Ashiyana Road, Rajiv Nagar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D.Sanjay, ASG Ms. Paul Prasad, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 08-01-2018 None appears for the applicant. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. S.G. appears for the respondent.

Office objection is ignored.

Having considered the statements made in the application and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

Patna High Court C. REV. No.386 of 2017(3) dt.08-01-2018 2/2 the case of Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Aravindakshan Nair and Ors: (2017) 4 SCC 692, the grounds raised in the application do not fall within the category as detailed by the Supreme Court on the basis of which review is permissible.

The application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U