Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.PRSANNAN, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER versus THE KARUNAGAPPALLY CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.PRSANNAN, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER v. THE KARUNAGAPPALLY CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 18672 of 2004(W) [2007] RD-KL 400 (5 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18672 of 2004(W)

1. P.PRSANNAN, OPERATOR, KERALA WATER
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KARUNAGAPPALLY CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

3. N.SIVANANDAN, AYIRATHIL HOUSE,

4. DIVAKARAN, KRISHNALAYAM HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.VIMALAN

For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER

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

Dated :05/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 18672/2004 Dated this the 5th day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is one of the sureties along with the fourth respondent. On the strength of the guarantee of the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent, the third respondent drew a loan of an amount of Rs.26,000/- from the first respondent, bank. The amount had not so far been re-paid, though the loan was taken on 19.1.1988. The fourth respondent was the headmaster who is since retired from the service.

2. The counsel alleges that the first respondent did not take any effective steps to realise the amount from the third and fourth respondents, particularly from the salary of the fourth respondent. After waiting for his retirement and disbursement of other pension benefits, the writ petitioner is being isolated and proceeded against for recovery of the amount, which comes to about 65,747/-. The counsel further submits, that within the limited resources of a pump operator, under the Kerala Water Authority, he is prepared to pay the amount W.P.(C).18672/2004 2 in instalments, provided the first respondent is granting waiving of interest, including penal interest. The loan may be considered within the specific relaxed scheme, on a decision that may be taken by the Board of Directors, submits the counsel.

3. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, I direct the writ petitioner to approach the first respondent, bank, and the Board of Directors shall consider the entire sequence of events, that occurred between the principal debtor and the sureties, together with the conduct of the officials of the first respondent, bank. The writ petitioner shall be heard and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, so that the petitioner could be allowed to remit the amount due to the bank, according to his mite and capacity, of course, within the frame work of law applicable. The writ petition is closed 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.