Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3310/2026 of HANNAN ALI Vs THE ICICI BANK AND OTHRS on 23 June 2026
GAHC010118842026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3310/2026 HANNAN ALI S/O ABUL KASHEM,R/O-Ward No.4, AMBARI,P.O AND P.S- Howly, DISTRICT - BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316. VERSUS THE ICICI BANK AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010118842026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3310/2026
HANNAN ALI
S/O ABUL KASHEM,R/O-Ward No.4, AMBARI,P.O AND P.S- Howly, DISTRICT - BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316.
VERSUS
THE ICICI BANK AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRAKURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400051
2:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SURVEILLANCE INVESTIGATIONDEPARTMENT
ICICI BANK
ICICI BANKTOWERS
BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX BKC
G BLOCK
MUMBAI-400051.
3:THE ZONAL MANAGER
ICICI BANK
ZONALOFFICE
OHIO SHOPPING COMPLEX
1SRFLOOR
MG ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
4:THE BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI BANK
Page No.# 2/2
BARPETA BRANCH
KESHAB KRISHNAMART
BB ROAD
BARPETA TOWN
P.O
P.S DIST-BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-781301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, H R KHAN,MR. J UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I C I C I BANK, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
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
Date : 24.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for all the respondents. Mr. Ali has submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the issue raised in the writ petition has been resolved and in that view of the matter, the petitioner does not want to press the writ petition. In view of the above submission of Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant