Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOHN SAMUEL, S/O.P.M. SAMUEL versus THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JOHN SAMUEL, S/O.P.M. SAMUEL v. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 32411 of 2006(H) [2006] RD-KL 2634 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32411 of 2006(H)

1. JOHN SAMUEL, S/O.P.M. SAMUEL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE THUMPAMON THAZHAM SERVICE

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 32411 of 2006 (H)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 6th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Through judgment in W.P.(C) No.7784/2006, dated 21/03/2006, the writ petitioner was allowed repayment of the loan to the second respondent Co-operative Bank in equal monthly instalments of Rs.2,000/- each, commencing from 15/07/2006. There was a stipulation that, in the event of default, the writ petitioner would forfeit the benefits given to him for repayment of the loan under instalments.

2. The mother of the writ petitioner was admitted in a hospital due to cardiac arrest, as could be seen from the medical documents produced before me. Therefore, he had defaulted the payment of instalments for the months of September and October, 2006. However, he has promptly remitted those arrears in the month of November, 2006. Thus, upto 15/11/2006, the entire amount due to the second respondent bank has been remitted. This writ petition is filed, fearing that because of the forfeiture clause, incorporated in the W.P.(C) No.32411/2006 (H) 2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.7784/2006, the bank may proceed against the writ petitioner for realisation of the entire amount, in lump.

3. After hearing the counsel for the writ petitioner, considering the medical documents placed before me and the circumstances explained, together with the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader, I direct the second respondent to continue to give all the benefits that had been bestowed on the writ petitioner, as per the judgment dated 21/03/2006 of this Court. The writ petitioner shall also continue to remit the amount, in equal monthly instalments, of Rs.2,000/- each, till the entire amount due to the second respondent is remitted, without the forfeiture being operated. The writ petition is closed as above. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.