Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GEORGE JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH versus THE REGISTRAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GEORGE JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH v. THE REGISTRAR - WP(C) No. 32151 of 2006(C) [2006] RD-KL 2379 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32151 of 2006(C)

1. GEORGE JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGISTRAR,
... Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,

3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

4. SECRETARY,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :04/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 32151 of 2006 (C)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 4th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of the loan amount to the fourth respondent bank. He had made a representation before the fourth respondent and approached this Court to a direction for consideration of his request. Through Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P5(a), this Court had directed the fourth respondent to consider the request for one time settlement scheme and dispose of the same within two months from the date of of production of the copy of the judgment. Exhibit P5 was dated 22/07/2005 and Exhibit P5(a) was a correction dated 09/12/2005.

2. One time settlement scheme was in force from 12/10/2001 to 31/03/2005. Therefore, the fourth respondent has disposed of the same, rejecting the prayer of the writ petitioner to accept an amount of Rs.11,024/-. Hence, the writ petitioner is again before this Court stating that the fourth respondent did not legally consider the directions of this Court for one time W.P.(C) No.32151/2006 (C) 2 settlement scheme. Hence, the writ petitioner prays that further appropriate directions may be issued.

3. After hearing the writ petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader, I direct the writ petitioner to prefer an application afresh, before the fourth respondent, within one week from today and the fourth respondent is to consider and dispose of the representation, extending the facilities and benefits available under the one time settlement scheme, as per Circular No.27/2006, dated 29/06/2006, which is valid upto 31/12/2006. The fourth respondent shall dispose of the same, within three weeks from the date of production of the copy of the judgment.

4. There shall be a stay of all further proceedings, till the representation that would be filed, within one week, is disposed of, as directed above. (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.