Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAY EAPEN, KOLLAPARAMBIL versus RECOVERY OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIJAY EAPEN, KOLLAPARAMBIL v. RECOVERY OFFICER - WP(C) No. 25689 of 2004(G) [2007] RD-KL 11668 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25689 of 2004(G)

1. VIJAY EAPEN, KOLLAPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RECOVERY OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. M/S.THOMSON ASSOCIATES,

3. THOMAS CHACKO, MANAGING PARTNER,

4. S.LAKSHMANAN, PARTNER,

5. MINI ELIZABATH NINAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.AHZAR

For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 25689 OF 2004

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The issue involved is essentially between the petitioner and the Dhanalekshmi Bank. The Bank is already before me and accordingly the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing. The ground which is prominently raised in this Writ Petition is that the decree holder Bank, M/s.Dhanalekshmi Bank is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Act 51 of 1993 and simultaneously the provisions of the Securitisation Act also. The ground cannot be any longer survive in view of the pronouncement of the law through binding judicial precedents covering the matter. I notice that though this Court was initially inclined to grant stay against actual dispossession of the petitioner from the property, the above order was not extended after 01.10.04. In all probability the petitioner is already dispossessed. But the counsel for the petitioner submits that still there is a chance to settle the issue between the petitioner and Bank. Counsel for the Bank has no information about the settlement. I dispose the writ petition without granting the reliefs sought for. I make it clear that the above disposal will not stand in the way of the petitioner settling the issue with the other parties. Other statutory remedies available to the petitioner are not foreclosed by this judgment.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC 2


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.