Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADHAVAN, AGED 60 versus THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MADHAVAN, AGED 60 v. THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 15014 of 2006(K) [2006] RD-KL 3822 (19 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15014 of 2006(K)

1. MADHAVAN, AGED 60,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,

4. ADARSH KURIES AND FINANCE (P) LTD.,

5. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

For Respondent :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

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

Dated :19/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 15014 of 2006 (K)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 19th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioner has defaulted payments due to the first respondent, Irinjalakuda Town Co-operative Bank Ltd., as well as to the fourth respondent, the Adarsh Kuries and Finance (P) Ltd.. The property was subjected to mortage to both these establishments. It is submitted that the fourth respondent had cleared the dues, in respect of the property of the petitioner, with the first respondent bank and also bid the property in auction. Hence, the fourth respondent is in possession of the property covered under the auction, as a successful bidder.

2. The writ petitioner approached the Government and, as per Exhibit P1 order dated 23/03/2006, the appeal was disposed of. But an observation was made therein to the effect that:-

"Even now the company is willing to return the property if the appellant remits the sale amount along with other costs, interest etc., So the appellant can avail such offer of the company if he want to take the property back." W.P.(C) No.15014/2006 (K) 2

3. This writ petition is now filed challenging Exhibit P1 order of the Government and Exhibit P2 eviction order.

4. I heard the arguments advanced by both sides. I find no merit in the contentions so as to interfere with Exhibit P1 order and Exhibit P2 proceedings initiated based on Exhibit P1. However, as the writ petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amount due to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent is prepared to receive the same, I dispose of this writ petition, with the following directions:-

i. The writ petitioner shall approach the fourth respondent. The latter shall hear the writ petitioner and finalise the amount due from the writ petitioner. ii. The writ petitioner shall pay the entire amount due to the fourth respondent, as would be calculated by the fourth respondent, in terms of Exhibits P1 and P2, within two months from today. W.P.(C) No.15014/2006 (K) 3 iii. On complete payment of the amount, due to the fourth respondent, as there is no liability existing with the first respondent, the fourth respondent shall release the property, in favour of the writ petitioner, at the expenses of the writ petitioner. This writ petition is closed as 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.