Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OUSEPH VARGHESE versus THE DEVIKULAM TALUK CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


OUSEPH VARGHESE v. THE DEVIKULAM TALUK CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL - WP(C) No. 21689 of 2006(F) [2006] RD-KL 495 (16 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21689 of 2006(F)

1. OUSEPH VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DEVIKULAM TALUK CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL
... Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

3. THE ASST. REGISTRAR/VALUATION OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :16/08/2006

O R D E R

K.Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 21689 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16th day of August, 2006



JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant one time settlement facility to him to remit the amounts as stated in Ext.P5. The petitioner submits that he had availed of a loan for the development of agriculture and construction of a residential building from the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner also submits that due to financial difficulty, he could not clear the dues. The petitioner further submits that he had remitted Rs.16,628/-. He relies on Ext.P3 letter of the Agricultural Officer. In Ext.P3 letter it is stated that crop compensation assistance was given to the petitioner by the government. The petitioner submits that he filed Ext. P-4 representation before the Joint Registrar. According to the petitioner, the Joint Registrar informed the bank that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of one time settlement.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only proper for the bank to consider the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is directed to file a representation before the 1st respondent bank within 15 days from today. If such representation is received, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass WP(C) 21689/06 2 appropriate orders thereon as early as possible, at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. While considering the representation, the 1st respondent shall also consider Exts.P3 and P5 . Till a final decision is taken in the representation, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. If the petitioner fails to file the representation as stated above, the 1st respondent can proceed against the petitioner as per Ext.P1. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. K. Thankappan, Judge. mn.

K.Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) NO. Of
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


JUDGMENT

16-8-2006


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.