Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE KOTTAPPADY SERVICE CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE KOTTAPPADY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD v. K.N. NARAYANAN NAIR - RP No. 754 of 2006(I) [2006] RD-KL 868 (22 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 754 of 2006(I)

1. THE KOTTAPPADY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.N.NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES

3. THE ARBITRATOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.P.V.S.SUDHEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :22/09/2006

O R D E R

K. THANKAPPAN, J.

R.P. NO. 754 OF 2006

Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2006

ORDER

The judgment dated 1.8.2006 is recalled and the matter is posted for rehearing, on allowing the review. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of Ext.P1 passed by the first respondent on the basis of judgment of this court the second respondent is not implementing the order passed by the first respondent.

2. The petitioner submits that he is a depositor with the second respondent-bank and the deposit now become matured. Hence amount deposited is liable to be returned to the depositor. The petitioner is a retired teacher who now entrusted all his assets with the second respondent-bank. But when the petitioner approached the bank for release of amount the bank is reluctant to release the amount.

3. The counsel for the second respondent is also heard. Relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the counsel submits that at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for the release of the amount deposited with the second respondent. It is also submitted that an Arbitration R.P. NO. 754 OF 2006 2 case 2969/03 is pending before the third respondent. Since the arbitration case is not over, the second respondent is not in a position to disburse the fixed deposit. Further it is submitted that the accounts with regard to the deposit of the amount as claimed by the petitioner itself is not correct. Hence this matter has to be considered by the second respondent by afresh on the basis of the decision being taken by the third respondent. However, the minimum requests of the petitioner is that in the light of facts now narrated before this court and the contentions raised by the parties this court is of the view that the second respondent shall consider Ext.P1 and shall pass appropriate orders thereon within reasonable time, at any rate, within 45 days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV/ R.P. NO. 754 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.