Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.H. MUNEERA versus THE SALE OFFICER (INSPECTOR A & E)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.H. MUNEERA v. THE SALE OFFICER (INSPECTOR A & E) - WP(C) No. 14726 of 2006(C) [2006] RD-KL 275 (18 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14726 of 2006(C)

1. C.H.MUNEERA, W/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SALE OFFICER (INSPECTOR A & E)
... Respondent

2. THE PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :18/07/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.14726 OF 2006

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 notice issued by the first respondent directing him to pay an amount of Rs.3,09,641/- to the Bank in full and final settlement of the loan taken by him.

2. The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the second respondent - Bank. Since, the petitioner did not remit the loan amount as agreed, Ext.P1 notice was issued to him. The petitioner now submits that she is willing to pay the amount and seeks the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme.

3. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.60,000/- within six weeks from the date of the order. It is reported that the above amount has been remitted by the petitioner. Hence, it is only proper for the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner. W.P.(C)NO.14726/2006 2

4. A counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of the second respondent in which it is stated that if the petitioner remits 10% of the total amount, the Bank shall consider the question of granting the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner.

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file an application seeking the benefit of One Time Settlement within ten days from today. On receipt of such an application, the second respondent - Bank shall consider the request of the petitioner as per the existing Circular. The benefit of the above scheme is extended upto 31.12.2006. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/ W.P.(C)NO.14726/2006 3

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.14726/2006

JUDGMENT

18TH JULY, 2006 W.P.(C)NO.14726/2006 4


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.