Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.G. PRASANNAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.G. PRASANNAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 22400 of 2006(N) [2006] RD-KL 728 (13 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22400 of 2006(N)

1. C.G.PRASANNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE ASST. REGISTRAR,

3. THANKI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :13/09/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 22400 OF 2006

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the third respondent - Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the moratorium declared by the State Government against recovery of agricultural debt, the Bank is proceeding against the sureties. The petitioner submits that he had filed Ext.P2 representation before the third respondent seeking further time to repay the loan amount and requesting the Bank to proceed against his immovable property instead of proceeding against the sureties. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent - Assistant Registrar passed Ext.P5 order directing the Bank not to start recovery proceedings against the petitioner or the sureties and that inspite of Ext.P5, the Bank is proceeding against the sureties.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that since one of the sureties is due to retire, only a W.P.(C)NO.22400/2006 2 small amount is ordered to be recovered from the said surety and the Bank is proposing to proceed against the petitioner and the other surety. Whatever may be the action proposed to be taken by the Bank, it is only proper for the Bank to consider Ext.P2 representation in the light of Ext.P5 order and any other clarification. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that till a decision is taken on Ext.P2, the Bank shall not proceed against the petitioner or the sureties provided the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.15,000/- within one month from today, failing which the Bank can proceed against the petitioner, his property or the sureties. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/ W.P.(C)NO.22400/2006 3


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.