Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V. RAMAN, S/O.KUNHICHEKKAN, VARAPURATH versus ARIKKULAM SERVICE CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V. RAMAN, S/O.KUNHICHEKKAN, VARAPURATH v. ARIKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK - WP(C) No. 321 of 2007(L) [2007] RD-KL 217 (3 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 321 of 2007(L)

1. V. RAMAN, S/O.KUNHICHEKKAN, VARAPURATH,
... Petitioner

2. V.K. RAVI, VARAKKANDI HOUSE,

3. P. NARAYANAN, POST URIALUR,

Vs

1. ARIKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :03/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

........................................... W.P.(C)No.321 OF 2007 ............................................

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners are judgment debtors. As per judgment dated 23.5.2006, petitioners were granted opportunity to submit a representation for one time settlement before the decree holder, Co-operative Bank. The Co- operative Bank was directed to pass appropriate orders within one month. Under Ext.P6 and P7 orders, Co- operative Bank permitted petitioner to pay the balance decree debt of Rs.21,195/- in E.P.177 of 2002 in monthly instalments of Rs.2120/- and to pay the balance decree debt of Rs.6246.10 in E.P.151 of 2000 in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.625/-. Petitioners did not remit that amount. Instead, Ext.P9 and P9(a) petitions were sent for recalculating the amount on the basis of the circulars. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders. Petitioner also sought to quash Ext.P10 order passed by the executing court consequent to the failure of the petitioners to pay the decree debt in addition to the Wp(c)321/2007 2 prayer for issuing copy of Ext.P10 order by the executing court. If petitioners apply for urgent copy application for certified copy of Ext.P10 order it will be granted . Petitioners have not disclosed when they filed the copy applications and whether they filed urgent copy applications. In such circumstances, no direction to the executing court to issue the certified copy is warranted. Without producing the order, Ext.P10 cannot be quashed as sought for. The question then is whether petitioners are entitled to the relief as against Exts.P6 and P7 orders. It was pursuant to the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the decree holder Bank considered the prayer for one-time settlement, Ext.P6 and P7 orders were passed. In the petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, it is not possible to consider whether the balance amount worked out is in accordance with the conditions provided in the Government circulars. Petitioners are not entitled to get a further direction on the basis of Exts.P9 and P9(a) representations also. Decree holder Co-operative Bank may consider Exts.P9 and P9(a) representations and Wp(c)321/2007 3 may pass appropriate orders. But execution petitions cannot be protracted for that purpose. Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-


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.