Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH N. versus THE ARBITRATOR, OFFICE OF THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUBHASH N. v. THE ARBITRATOR, OFFICE OF THE - WP(C) No. 21756 of 2006(M) [2006] RD-KL 502 (16 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21756 of 2006(M)

1. SUBHASH N., S/O. NEELAKANDAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ARBITRATOR, OFFICE OF THE
... Respondent

2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM URBAN

3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

For Petitioner :SRI.R.RENJITH

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. 21756 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16th day of August, 2006



JUDGMENT

Challenging Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Petitioner had availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent bank and the loan amount became due. The bank had filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for realizing the amount with interest. The 1st respondent passed Ext.P4 award permitting the 2nd respondent bank to realize the amount with interest. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed R.P.No.147/2006 before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. The Tribunal granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.45,000/- on or before 28-7-2006. The petitioner filed an application to extend the time for remittance of the amount. The above application was rejected. Later the interim stay granted was vacated. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

3. The petitioner submits that he submitted a representation before the bank requesting the benefits of one time settlement scheme, but without W.P.(C) 21756/06 2 considering the representation the arbitration case was filed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount. The petitioner also submits that as he had to spend a substantial amount for the treatment of his wife, he could not repay the amount in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount and some leniency may be given in the matter and Exts.P7 and P8 may be quashed.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interim stay granted by the Tribunal in I.A.No.214/2006 shall stand revived and extended on condition that the petitioner furnishes a security for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within thirty days from today to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. If he fails to furnish the security as aforesaid, the interim stay granted shall stand automatically vacated. The writ petition is disposed of as above. 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.