Mathew George vs The Kerala Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 4734 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mathew George vs The Kerala Bank on 6 February, 2024

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

WP(C) No.495/2023                            1/1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
             Tuesday, the 6th day of February 2024 / 17th Magha, 1945
                     IA.NO.1/2024 IN WP(C) NO. 495 OF 2023(J)
   APPLICANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

          THE KERALA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VITHURA BRANCH,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695551

   RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT:

      1. MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. K K GEORGE, KALLUVILAYATHIL
         VEEDU, ANAPPARA, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695551
      2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541


        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to        correct the
   outstanding amount stated as"the total outstanding amount as of now is
   approximately Rs.16 Lakhs" in the Judgment dated 12/10/2023 in the above
   Writ Petition as "the total outstanding amount as on 10/10/2023 is
   Rs.23,70,686/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred and
   Eighty Six only)", for the fair play of justice.


        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's
   judgment dated 12-10-2023 in WPC and upon hearing the arguments of
   SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, Advocate for the petitioner in IA/1st respondent in
   WP(C) and of M/S. SRI. SHERIN VARGHESE, ASWIN T SURESH, Advocates for the
   1st respondent in IA/petitioner in WP(C),GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the 2nd
   respondent in IA/ 2nd respondent in WP(C), the court passed the following:

                                        ORDER

It is clarified that the amount as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment was only an approximate amount and not the actual amount.

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

06-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar