Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.J.THANKAMMA versus THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.J.THANKAMMA v. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE - WP(C) No. 19137 of 2006(C) [2007] RD-KL 14141 (26 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19137 of 2006(C)

1. A.J.THANKAMMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
... Respondent

2. M.T.RAJAN, AROOKKUZHIYIL HOUSE,

3. K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, -DO- -DO-.

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU

For Respondent :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :26/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 19137 of 2006

Dated this the 26th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Sri.Santhosh Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner confesses that the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by this court that a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid within one month from 21.7.2006 for granting stay. Ordinarily, this court would not have been inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, who failed to comply with the conditions after suffering conditions for obtaining interim relief.

2. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to enlarge the time for payment of sum of Rs.20,000/- ordered by this court on 21.7.2006 till 16.8.2007. If the payment of the above amount is made on or before 16.8.2007, the execution court will hold up further proceedings for execution for another three months and it is for the petitioner to sort out the issue with the respondent bank in any manner of his choice before the expiry of the said WPC No.19137/2006 2 period of three months. At any rate, if the issue is not settled between the parties before the expiry of the time stated above, the court below shall proceed with the execution and ensure that the respondent bank, who obtained decree way back in the year 1988, gets the fruits of that decree. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not remit the sum of Rs.20,000/- within the time stipulated herein above, the petitioner will not be entitled for any benefits under this judgment and under such an event the writ petition will stand dismissed. It is needless to mention that the present E.P. will be kept alive by the learned Munsiff since a fresh E.P. will be time barred. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

Dpk


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.