Kerala High Court
RP/391/2025 of SHYLA Vs KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (KERALA BANK) on 4 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 391 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-02-2025 IN WP(C) NO.2591 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: SHYLA AGED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RP NO. 391 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-02-2025 IN WP(C) NO.2591 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SHYLA
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. STEPHEN SAJU PULIKKOTTIL, KAIPPANCHERY, NEAR GUEST HOUSE, SULTHAN BATHERY P. O, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 592.
BY ADVS.
SREEKANTH S.NAIR
SANDEEP P JOHNSON
RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT
:
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
(KERALA BANK)
OPP.KAKKODEN FILLING STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER /AUTHORIZED
OFFICER, PIN – 673 592.
BY ADV. ATHUL SHAJI, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP.No.391/2025
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 review petition has been filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 17-02-2025 in WP(C)No.2591/2025.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I find no grounds made out for review of the judgment dated 17-02-2025 in WP(C)No.2591/2025. If the petitioner wishes to prosecute her claim for renewal of the cash credit facility, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority of the respondent bank, and if such a request is pending, the same shall be considered by the competent authority of the respondent bank. However, this shall not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay off the amounts as directed in the judgment dated 17-02-2025 in WP(C)No.2591/2025 till a decision is taken by the competent authority of the respondent bank. If the competent authority of the respondent bank decides to renew the cash credit facility,
RP.No.391/2025
the petitioner will be governed by the terms of such decision and not by the directions issued by this Court.
Review petition is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats