Telangana High Court
WP/25709/2005 of M/s. R.R.Industries Ric Mill Pragathi Industrial Estate, Vs The Indian Bank, Circle Office, on 23 December 2005
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25709 OF 2005 Dated 23-12-2005 Between : M/s. R.R. Industries Rice Mill Pragathi Industrial Estate Gorrekunta, Warangal, represented by its Partner J.Yellaiah, son of Ramaiah, 58 years, resident of H.No.7/52, Pragati Industrial Estate, Gorrekunta,
WRIT PETITION No.25709 OF 2005
Dated 23-12-2005
Between :
M/s. R.R. Industries Rice Mill Pragathi Industrial Estate Gorrekunta, Warangal,represented by its Partner J.Yellaiah, son of Ramaiah, 58 years, resident ofH.No.7/52, Pragati Industrial Estate, Gorrekunta, Warangal.
….Petitioner.
And :
1. The Indian Bank, Circle Office, Hyderabad, represented by its ChiefManager and another.
…..Respondents.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to consider hisrepresentation for one time settlement.
2. While issuing Rule nisi, an interim order came to be passed by this Courtpermitting the petitioner to file a representation for one time settlement. The orderpassed on 2-12-2005 reads as follows :
“The petitioner is permitted to file a representation for one time settlement forSME Accounts as per the guidelines issued by the R.B.I. on 3-9-05 withinone week from today. If any such representation is filed, the respondentsshall consider and dispose of the same within ten days thereafter.”
3. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court on 02-12-2005, the petitionersubmitted a representation for one time settlement. The respondent-Bankconsidered the representation and rejected the same and communicated a copy ofthe order and thereby, the petitioner herein filed another writ petition questioning the said order.
4. Since the main relief in the writ petition itself is only to consider his representationand the said representation has been considered, the cause in the writ petition doesnot survive.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Date : 23-12-2005.
Dvs
__________________________
Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25709 OF 2005
Dated 23-12-2005