Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M. JOSE versus THE KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK HOUSING

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M. JOSE v. THE KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK HOUSING - WP(C) No. 24911 of 2006(N) [2006] RD-KL 863 (22 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24911 of 2006(N)

1. P.M. JOSE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KADUTHURUTHY BLOCK HOUSING
... Respondent

2. THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :22/09/2006

O R D E R

K. THANKAPPAN, J

W.P.(C). NO. 24911 OF 2006

Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the first respondent- bank agreeing to repay the amount within the stipulated time by instalments. The petitioner also pledged an extent of 46.5 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 339/2-B/1 as security to the loan. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount in time steps have been taken against the petitioner to recover the amount including the filing of an arbitration case as A.R.C No. 60/01. Now as per the award passed by the arbitrator, the petitioner is directed to pay total amount of Rs. 1,85,422 with interest and the first respondent-bank has been directed to recover the amount from the petitioner. On the basis of the award, in order to recover the amount the first respondent-bank issued Ext.P1 sale notice of the property pledged with the bank.

2.The petitioner now submits that he is willing to repay the amount if he has given some more time to settle the liability. Further, the petitioner submits that he is entitled for the benefit of one time settlement as per the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. For that he has filed Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent. Inspite of filing Ext.P2, the first W.P.(C). NO. 24911 OF 2006 2 respondent-bank is not taking any steps to consider the same. Now as the petitioner is willing to repay the amount and he is requested for granting the benefit of one time settlement it is only proper for the first respondent-bank to consider the claim of the petitioner and have a final decision in the matter.

3. In the above circumstances the petitioner is directed to remit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- within two weeks from today. The first respondent shall consider Ext.P2 and take a decision in the matter as early as possible, at any rate, within 45 days from the day on which the payment is made as ordered by this court. Till a final decision is taken in Ext.P2 further steps if any in pursuance of Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. With the above this writ petition is disposed of.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV/ W.P.(C). NO. 24911 OF 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.