Rameesh P.P v. Saji.T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 1380 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).6424/2012 ----------------------------------------------------- IN WP(C) 6424/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-06-2012 ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. RAMEESH P.P, AGED 19 YEARS AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SHAHULHAMEED P.P.
THEKKEKUNNATH HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SHAHUL HAMEED P.P., THEKKEKUNNATH HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------- SAJI.T, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK KUZHIMANNA BRANCH, THRISSUR DIST - 673641.
BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 1380 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).6424/2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE :
------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.6.2012 IN W.P.C.NO.6424 OF 2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE :
NIL ---------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------- Con.Case.No.1380 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
With regard to the application for grant of educational loan submitted by the petitioner, this Court issued directions as per Anneuxure A1 judgment. Alleging that in spite of the directions, Bank has not considered the application, this contempt case has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the bank has actually sanctioned the loan to the first petitioner by communication dated 22.06.2012. But the petitioner did not avail in the same.
Recording the same, the contempt case is closed, as no further actions are required in this matter under the Contempt of Court Act.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vs