Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SASIDHARAN versus SALE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SASIDHARAN v. SALE OFFICER - WP(C) No. 5241 of 2006(Y) [2006] RD-KL 977 (4 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5241 of 2006(Y)

1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SALE OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC,DC BANK,TS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :04/10/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 5241 OF 2006

Dated this the 4th day of October, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the second respondent- Bank agreeing to repay the same in instalments on the agreed rate of interest and the time stipulated. The loan was on the basis of over draft facility. As the loan amount was not repaid as agreed for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner, Ext.P1 notice was issued to him stating that his property which was mortgaged for availing of the loan will be sold for realization of Rs.5,67,940/-. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within one month from the date of the order. It is now reported that the petitioner has already paid Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the W.P.(C)NO.5241/2006 2 learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Counsel for the second respondent submits that since the Bank had allowed over draft facility, it was the duty of the petitioner to keep his account intact. The second respondent also filed an Arbitration Case and an award has been passed in favour of the Bank. However, the second respondent has agreed to consider the feasibility of granting the benefits of One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file an application for the benefits of one time settlement within 15 days from today and remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month form today in which case the second respondent shall consider the application and take a decision in the matter within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already paid by the petitioner and Rs.50,000/- ordered to be paid shall be taken into account by the second respondent while considering the application for the benefits of one time settlement. Till a decision is taken in the matter, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be kept in abeyance. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount as directed, the Bank can proceed against the petitioner. W.P.(C)NO.5241/2006 3 The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/


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.