MANI, AGE 55 YEARS versus SPECIAL SALE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

MANI, AGE 55 YEARS v. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER - WP(C) No. 2228 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 1560 (19 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2228 of 2007(M)

1. MANI, AGE 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. KAUMALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,

For Petitioner :SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :19/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 2228/2007 Dated this the 19thday of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

I heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. It is conceded by either side that Circular No.59/2006 dated 30.11.2006 extending facilities and benefits of One Time Settlement Scheme, are in force even now.

2. Therefore, I dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- within one month from today and the balance amount, due to the second respondent, in all the three awards of the Arbitrator, shall be remitted in equal monthly instalments.

3. The amount due to the second respondent, bank, shall be calculated by it, on a representation that would be filed by the petitioner relating to all the three awards, extending the facilities of One Time Settlement, and fixing the total amount due covering all the loans.  W.P.(C).2228/2007 2 The petitioner shall be allowed to remit the total amount in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be remitted within one month from the date of remittance of Rs.25,000/-, as ordered above.

4. There shall be no coercive actions against the writ petitioner during the period of the payment of amounts, as above.

5. In case of two consecutive defaults of instalments, the writ petitioner will not be entitled to continue with the facilities of One Time Settlement, as above, and in such event, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and recover the amount covering all the awards, in lump. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs 

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

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.