Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THANKAMALU AMMA, W/O.CHANDUKUTTAN NAIR versus CALICUT CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THANKAMALU AMMA, W/O.CHANDUKUTTAN NAIR v. CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. - WP(C) No. 33429 of 2006(D) [2007] RD-KL 5604 (16 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33429 of 2006(D)

1. THANKAMALU AMMA, W/O.CHANDUKUTTAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
... Respondent

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

4. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.M.ASOKAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :16/03/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN,J


===============
W.P.(C).No.33429 OF 2006
=================

Dated this the 16th day of March,2007



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to the first respondent bank. They have filed this writ petition challenging alleged proceedings initiated for sale of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The learned counsel for the bank brings to my attention the fact that the proceedings now initiated as evidenced by Exts.R1(a), R1(b),R1(c),R1(d),R1(e) and R1(f) are under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and not under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Although, originally a stay was granted by this court by order dated 26.02.2007, I had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- within two weeks as a condition for extension of the stay on 13.03.2007. I directed the counsel for the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner has complied with the direction in my order dated 26.02.2007. Today the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not able to raise enough funds to pay the said amount. In so far as the remedy of the petitioner against proceedings initiated by Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, I am not inclined to exercise by W.P.(C).No.33429 OF 2006 :2: discretionary jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not even complied with the directions in my interim order. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE

dvs


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.