The Rajampet Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Rajampet, Cuddapah District v. The Reserve Bank of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the directions in his Ref.UBD.No.BSD.IV/12.03.0910/99-2000 dt.20th April, 2000 pursuant to the order issued by the 1st respondent in his Ref.BSD.IV/3314/14.03.0910/99-2000 dated 19th April, 2000 without notice, without enquiry, without reason, basis, without consideration, without any object as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative, against the principles of natural justice, against Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, mala fide and against Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the impugned directions. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Mr. L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. September 9, 2004. (V.V.S. RAO, J) YS ________________ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER. To
The Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Urban Banks Department, 1st Floor, Garment House, Worli, Mumbai.
The Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Urban Banks Department, 1st Fllor, Garment House, Worli, Mumbai. 3 Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09 Sep 2004. The bench was V V S RAO.
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.