High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 KAR CK 0680

R Venkatesha Murthy vs Debadatta Chand & Anr.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jayant Banerji, J · T.M.Nadaf, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CCC No. 1113 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 301 words

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Head the learned counsel for the complainant.

2.

This complaint is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 16.06.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.12965/2026. It appears that a writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider several representations of the petitioner addressed to the Assistant General Manager and Managing Director of the bank. The grievance is that the respondent-bank has not considered the representations submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent-bank to consider the set of representations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

3.

It is stated that by means of a letter dated 02.07.2026, addressed to the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-bank and the Deputy General Manager, HRM & In-charge TR & HRCPC of the Bank of Baroda, the order of the Writ Court was communicated. By an order passed by the Deputy General Manager (HRM), Head-Terminal Benefits, HRCPC and Medical Insurance, the representations were re-examined and no merits were found in the same.

4.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the representations were addressed to the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer as well as the Deputy General Manager, but neither of them decided the applications.

5.

Having perused the record of this complaint, it appears from the order in the Writ Petition that the respondent-bank was directed to consider the representations of the complainant. By the order of 22.07.2026, a detailed response has been made and communicated to the complainant rejecting his representations after re-examining them on merits.

6.

In our considered opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with. There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly consigned.