IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8072 of 2006(J)
1. SUNNY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 41,
... Petitioner
2. MERCY SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY THOMAS,
3. ANNAMMA THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS,
Vs
1. MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, MEENACHIL,
3. SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION,
4. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
5. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :11/01/2007
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 8072/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioners are defaulters to the first
respondent, Urban Co-operative Bank. They had been
proceeded against, as an amount of Rs.8,80,033/- is due
as on 24.5.2006, the date of filing of the counter by the
first respondent.
2. This writ petition was filed on 16.3.2006. After
ordering notice, an interim stay for three months was
granted, on condition of the petitioner remitting an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 20.3.2006 and also
directed to make further remittance of Rs.1,00,000/- each,
on 30.4.2006 and on 30.5.2006.
3. The learned counsel for the first respondent
submits that no amount had so far been paid. Through
counter, the counsel also brought to my notice that the
writ petitioners had preferred different writ petitions in
the earlier occasions and after obtaining the interim
W.P.(C).8072/2006
2
orders, the same had not been complied with whenever
the first respondent opposed the continuance of the stay
granted.
4. When this writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petition is not pressed. It was on that
occasion, the counsel for the first respondent brought to
my notice that the petitioner had preferred W.P.(C).
No.29587/2004. An interim stay was granted on
8.10.2004, with a direction to remit Rs.75,000/-. But
the same had not been remitted so far, submits the
counsel. Similarly another writ petition, W.P.(C).
29931/2005, was filed after suppressing the filing of the
earlier writ petition. In that petition also, an interim
stay was granted on 25.10.2005. But the same had not
been complied with. Therefore, after hearing all
concerned, the learned single Judge of this Court had
dismissed the said writ petition on 4.1.2006. The counsel
submits that though an interim order had been obtained
in this writ petition as well, no amount had so far been
W.P.(C).8072/2006
3
paid. The counsel for the first respondent, therefore,
submits that a direction may be issued to the writ
petitioners to pay back the entire amount due from
them, as the One Time Settlement allowed was also not
availed off by them.
5. In the above facts situation, I find there is no
point that arises for consideration, in this writ petition.
The writ petitioners are directed to approach the first
respondent, bank, and either pay the amount due to the
first respondent or settle the matter as per the law,
without unnecessarily preferring the writ petitions
repeatedly. However in the circumstances of this case,
I am not imposing any cost on the writ petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs