Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.V.MATHAI, ANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE versus THE KALLOORKAD FARMERS CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.V.MATHAI, ANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE v. THE KALLOORKAD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE - OP No. 22991 of 2002(K) [2006] RD-KL 3155 (12 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 22991 of 2002(K)

1. A.V.MATHAI, ANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KALLOORKAD FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE KALLOORKAD

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY

For Respondent :SPL.GOVT.PLEADER

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

Dated :12/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P No. 22991 of 2002 (K)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Under Exhibit P11 dated 22/07/2002, the third respondent has intimated the petitioner that because of an enquiry that was conducted, under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in short 'the Act', and the liabilities, if any, that were to be fixed, the retirement benefits could be released only thereafter. It was challenging the said Exhibit P11, that the present original petition has been filed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2, that consequent on the order dated 13/08/2002, of this Court, in C.M.P.No.39391/2002, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been released without any security but with an undertaking that it would be repaid with 12% interest, in case, any liabilities are later on found against him. There was also another direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release the remaining portion of the benefits due to the petitioner on the strength of security, to the satisfaction of the bank. Accordingly, the directions have been O.P. No. 22991/2002 (K) 2 complied with and the benefits were released.

3. The counsel for the original petitioner, however, submits that to the knowledge of the writ petitioner no proceedings had been initiated or steps taken either under Sections 68 or 69 of the Act, till date and, therefore, even Exhibit P11 has become infructuous, particularly, in view of the interim order that was passed by this Court, releasing all the benefits due to the petitioner as above.

4. In the above facts situation, I find that no further orders are necessary on Exhibit P11. If any benefits are found due to the petitioner, he may approach the first respondent bank and, in that event, the first respondent bank shall pass appropriate orders, releasing the amount due to him, provided no other proceedings are meanwhile initiated, or pending. The original petition is closed accordingly. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms O.P. No. 22991/2002 (K) 3

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P No. 22991 of 2002 (K)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


J U D G M E N T

12th December, 2006


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.