Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SABU JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS versus THE DISTRICT CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SABU JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS v. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK - WP(C) No. 10117 of 2005(D) [2006] RD-KL 3856 (19 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10117 of 2005(D)

1. SABU JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. JOSEPH JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, DO.

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SPECIAL

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, DCB, KTM

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

Dated :19/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 10117 of 2005 (D)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 19th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

I heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent, together with the submissions of the Senior Government Pleader for the second respondent. On 28/03/2005, this Court had directed the writ petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, on or before 31/03/2005. The same had not been done so far. It is submitted by the counsel for the writ petitioners that facilities and benefits available under one time settlement scheme may be extended to the writ petitioners, as they are willing to abide by any directions that would be issued by this Court, in terms of the one time settlement.

2. The learned counsel for the first respondent, however, opposes the plea, on the ground that the writ petitioners did not remit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as ordered by this Court on 28/03/2005. W.P.(C) No.10117/2005 (D) 2

3. After hearing both sides and considering the circumstances of this case, I direct the writ petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), within two weeks from today, before the first respondent bank. Simultaneously the writ petitioners shall also file an application requesting for an one time settlement, before the first respondent. The latter shall, on receipt of such representation, hear the writ petitioners and fix the final amount, due to the first respondent.

4. The balance amount due to the first respondent, shall be remitted according to the benefits available under the one time settlement scheme, as per Circular No.27/2006, dated 29/06/2006.

5. In case of any default in making the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, as directed above within two weeks, or making payments of instalments, as would be ordered by the first respondent, the facility of one time settlement will be lost to the writ petitioners and the first respondent will be at liberty to realise the amount, according to the law. This 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.