Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.A.JOSEPH, KANIAMPARAMBIL, MATTAKKARA versus THE REGISTRAR OF CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.A.JOSEPH, KANIAMPARAMBIL, MATTAKKARA v. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - WP(C) No. 32661 of 2003(L) [2007] RD-KL 15 (1 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32661 of 2003(L)

1. K.A.JOSEPH, KANIAMPARAMBIL, MATTAKKARA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
... Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,

4. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, DCB, KTM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :01/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 32661/2003 Dated this the 1st day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

Through Ext.P3 representation dated 6.9.2003, the writ petitioner prays, the second respondent, the Joint Registrar, to permit him to pay the amount due to the fourth respondent, The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., as per the calculations made therein. However, the writ petitioner stated in paragraph 9 of Ext.P3 that

"if the calculation statement given above is not correct, please issue me a correct calculation statement immediately".

2. In paragraph 10, it is stated that "the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount mentioned above, immediately on the receipt of your order. Necessary orders may be given to the bank for receiving the amount towards the full and final settlement".

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount, as per the calculation made by the writ petitioner, had been paid to the fourth respondent, bank. According to the counsel, no further amount is due W.P.(C).32661/2003 2 to the fourth respondent.

4. The learned counsel however, submits that all the documents, in respect of the property mortgaged with the bank at the time of the realisation of the loan, are with the fourth respondent, bank, and the same are not returned. It is, therefore, submitted that necessary direction may be given to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders including the direction to the fourth respondent to return the documents of the writ petitioner, after closing the loan amount and to inform the writ petitioner if any amount is otherwise due, which shall be fixed after hearing the petitioner.

5. The second respondent, the Joint Registrar, shall hear the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the representation that is pending with him, within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before him. The writ petition is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


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.