Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.KAMALASKHYAMMA, AGED 75 versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT.KAMALASKHYAMMA, AGED 75 v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 34099 of 2006(H) [2006] RD-KL 4017 (20 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34099 of 2006(H)

1. SMT.KAMALASKHYAMMA, AGED 75,
... Petitioner

2. SMT.B.VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 42,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OP. BANK NO.51,

3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAJAN

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

Dated :20/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 34099 of 2006 (H)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioners are before this Court praying to adjourn the sale of the properties, belonging to the writ petitioners, scheduled to be held on 21/12/2006 and also permit them to remit the amount through the private sale of the property.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.T.A.Rajan, along with the Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3. The learned counsel for the second respondent, brought to my notice that there is no one time settlement applicable to the Urban Co- operative Banks. The counsel for the writ petitioners on the other hand submits that, irrespective of the availability of the scheme, they are prepared to pay the amount in instalments by W.P.(C) No.34099/2006 (H) 2 selling the properties. After considering the materials placed before me, I pass the following orders:

i. The writ petitioners shall remit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), within thirty (30) days from today, to the second respondent bank, without fail. ii. The writ petitioners shall continue to remit Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty- five thousand only) each, per month, for a period of six months. iii. The writ petitioners are permitted to sell the property, which is pledged with the second respondent, under the supervision and control of the second respondent, to any private person, either whole or a portion of the property, within a period of six months. iv. There shall be no default in the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as Rs.25,000/- per month, as directed above. In case of any W.P.(C) No.34099/2006 (H) 3 default, the second respondent is free to proceed against the writ petitioners, as per the law.

v. The settlement of the amount, due to the second respondent, shall be as per the scheme or laws, that will be applicable at the time of final settlement. 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.