VEGESHNA S V SUBBARAJU v. IDBI BANK LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 19, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Sri B. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, representing Smt. Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission of learned counsel appearing for the…
Judgment
ITS GM & II), FIRST SIRIPURAM,
#2. IDBI BANK LIMITED BHIMAVARAM BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, DOOR NO.22-11-9,BESIDE LONDON HOSPITAL, SUNDAY MARKET, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN CODE 534201 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or order or direction more fully in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents bank in not considering the payments deposited by the petitioner M savings bank accounts which was linked with the Loan account as per the OTS sanctioned Letter dated 17-02- 2016 of the respondent bank is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India besides being opposed the Principles 2 of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the OTS Sanctioned letter dated 17-02-2016 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 8360 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondents to consider the OTS Sanctioned letter dated 17-02- 2016 of the respondent bank pending the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
#1. JAMI MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
#1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Sri B. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, representing Smt. Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 15.10.2025 SCH __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 4 225 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6820/2017 Date: 15.10.2025 SCH
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 19, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 Oct 2025. The bench was SUMATHI JAGADAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.