Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
M.C. NANDAN – Appellant
Versus
THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petitions filed for compensation calculation. (Para 2) |
| 2. dismissal of petitions based on absence of self-evident error. (Para 3) |
| 3. clarification on review powers and applicable legal standards. (Para 5) |
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in these review petitions is the appellant in W.A.No.1211 of 2024 and 1st respondent in W.A.No.638 of 2022. He filed the respective review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ in short), seeking review of the common judgment dated 07.12.2024 passed by this Court in those writ appeals.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that while disposing of the writ appeals, this Court directed the 1st respondent Bank to quantify the compensation to be payable to the petitioner/appellant based on the formula laid down by the Apex Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Others [(1986) 4 SCC 337]. The judgment inO.P Bhandari’s case was rendered 38 years ago, based on the interest rate prevailing at
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
