Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.T. SAJEEV, S/O. THERKKAYIL BHASKARAN versus KERALA CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.T. SAJEEV, S/O. THERKKAYIL BHASKARAN v. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL - WP(C) No. 2697 of 2006(U) [2007] RD-KL 2276 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2697 of 2006(U)

1. S.T. SAJEEV, S/O. THERKKAYIL BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner

2. BHASKARAN, S/O. THERKKAYIL VELAYUDHAN,

Vs

1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent

2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, VENGINISSERI

3. THE SECRETARY, VENGINISSERI SERVICE

For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.RAVISANKAR

For Respondent :SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

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

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 2697 of 2006 (U)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

There was no representation when the matter came up on 18/01/2007. Therefore, it was taken up for disposal on 24/01/2007. There was also no representation from the writ petitioners, when the writ petition came up for consideration on 24/01/2007. But the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that no amount had been remitted as ordered by this Court on 30/01/2006. Therefore, I had adjourned the case to today. There is no representation today also. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent reiterates that he had verified with the third respondent and that no amount has so far been paid, as ordered by this Court on 30/01/2006. The counsel also further submitted that there are number of writ petitions filed, which have been consequently dismissed at various stages. He gave the details of four such writ petitions -- W.P(C) Nos.2879/2006, 2865/2006, 2542/2006 and 2851/2006. W.P.(C) No.2697/2006 (U) 2

2. As the other side is not before this Court, I am not commenting on the writ petitioners, preferring different writ petitions and later on abandoning the same at various stages. However, in the above facts situation, I find that no orders are necessary in this writ petition. Hence the same is dismissed. (J.M.JAMES) Judge ms


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.