Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE CANARA BANK, PAYYANNUR BRANCH versus K.SREEPRAKASH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE CANARA BANK, PAYYANNUR BRANCH v. K.SREEPRAKASH - WA No. 834 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 13203 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 834 of 2003()

1. THE CANARA BANK, PAYYANNUR BRANCH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.SREEPRAKASH,
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOROM.

5. SREELATHA K., W/O.VINAYAKUMAR M.P.,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.SEN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... W.A. No. 834 OF 2003 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 16th July, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.P. 38361 of 2002 dated 17.12.2002. The petitioner before the learned single Judge was the guarantor for the amounts borrowed by the fifth respondent. The bank had initiated proceedings against the petitioner as well as the principal borrower for recovery of the amounts due to them.

2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said action of the bank, was before this court in O.P.No. 38361 of 2002 . The learned single Judge, being of the opinion that in the interest of both the parties a direction need be issued to the bank, first to recover the amounts due to the bank from the fifth respondent by effecting sale of the mortgaged property and if for any reason, the decree is not satisfied, then to proceed against the guarantors and disposed of the Original Petition in the above manner.

3. Having gone through the orders passed by the learned single Judge and the averments made in the Writ Appeal as well as in the Original Petition, we are of the view that the orders so passed by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be characterised either as arbitrary or perverse. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to entertain this Writ Appeal. But, we make it clear that the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid Original Petition should be confined only to the facts and circumstance of that W.A. No. 834 OF 2003 2 case and that the orders passed by the learned single Judge should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. I.A.No. 62 of 2003 is also disposed of. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk H.L. DATTU, C.J. &

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

........................................................ W.A. No. 834 OF 2003 .........................................................

Dated this the 16th July, 2007



J U D G M E N T


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.