O.Ranjini v. The Branch Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2015/11TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 519 of 2015 --------------------------- WA 484/2015, DATED 22-05-2015 --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------------------------------------ O.RANJINI, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN, R/AT NALLERI HOUSE, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. O.RANJINI (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, THALIPARAMBA BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH - I, PAMBA MADHAVAN ROAD, TALAP, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, KOZHIKODE.
BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
RP.No. 519 of 2015 --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ANNEXURE II: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R3 DATED 18/3/76 ANNEXURE III: COPY OF AUTHORISATION LETTER DATED 12/1/87 ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF CHEQUE DTD.18/9/90 ANNEXURE V: COPY OF LETTER DTD.16/8/94 ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF CHEQUE DATED 5/3/96 ANNEXURE VII: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD.19/1/94 ANNEXURE VIII: COPY OF LETTER DTD.6/4/94 ANNEXURE IX: COPY OF LOWYER NOTICE DTD.22/6/95 ANNEXURE X: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R3 DTD.17/7/96 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P.No.519 of 2015 in W.A.No.484of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July 2015
O R D E R
Shaffique, J This review petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 22/05/2015 in W.A.No.484/2015. In the review petition, it is contended that the petitioner has suffered huge loss and that she was compelled to close the business on account of certain bogus documents created on her behalf. Further, it is contended that the petitioner's signature was misused.
2.
Having gone through the averments made in the review petition, we do not find any error in the judgment which warrants review of the judgment.
3.
However, during the course of proceedings, it was mentioned that the review petitioner was not in receipt of the maturity amount in respect of both the policies which were referred to in the writ appeal judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has today given two cheques with reference to the policy numbers referred to in the
writ appeal judgment, which the review petitioner admits to have received, the details of which are shown here. Sl.No Policy No.
Cheque No.
Amount Date 66394287 109349 `.70,359 02/07/15 45368812 121063 `.49,238 02/07/15 Having regard to the fact that maturity amount in respect of both the policies have been received and satisfied by the review petitioner, we do not find any reason to review the judgment. Accordingly, this review petition is closed taking on record the fact that the amount covered by the two policies referred to in the writ appeal judgment has been received and satisfied by the review petitioner.
(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr