Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GEORGE MATHEW versus MEENACHIL CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GEORGE MATHEW v. MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE (AGRICULTURE - WP(C) No. 22010 of 2005(T) [2007] RD-KL 2467 (2 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22010 of 2005(T)

1. GEORGE MATHEW,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE (AGRICULTURE
... Respondent

2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

For Respondent :SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI

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

Dated :02/02/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 22010 of 2005 (T)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioner filed this writ petition, on 22/07/2005, praying to quash Exhibit P1 notice dated 20/06/2005, issued to the writ petitioner, informing him of the sale of his property through public auction.

2. At the time of admission on 25/07/2005, this Court passed the following order:-

"Urgent notice before admission to R1. Government Pleader takes notice for R2. Interim stay as prayed for, on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) per month payable on or before 20th of every month commencing from August 2005. If the petitioner commits default in any deposit as aforesaid, this order will stand automatically recalled."

3. The writ petition has been brought up for hearing, at the instance of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the directions W.P.(C) No.22010/2005 (T) 2 contained in the order dated 25/07/2005, as quoted above, had not so far been complied with. It is also submitted that as the matter is pending, the first respondent had not so far taken any coercive action against the writ petitioner.

4. In the above circumstances, in order to avoid an adverse action on the writ petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the writ petitioner, if so advised, to approach the first respondent, with an one time settlement application, within ten days from today. The first respondent shall, hear the writ petitioner and dispose of the application, on merit, within three weeks thereafter. I am not intending to pass any other order on merit.

5. The first respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the writ petitioner, according to the law, in the event of failure on his part to comply with the conditions contained herein. (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.