High Court Kerala High Court

C.I.Abraham vs Poonjar Grama Panchayath on 17 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
C.I.Abraham vs Poonjar Grama Panchayath on 17 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12621 of 2007(C)


1. C.I.ABRAHAM, POOVELIL, POONJAR P.O.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. POONJAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.R.GOPINATHAN, PULIYALLIL HOUSE,

3. P.L.JOB, S/O.P.K.LUKOSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :17/03/2008

 O R D E R
                       PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                =======================

         W.P.(C)NOS. 2956 OF 2005 & 12621 & OF 2007

              ========================

             DATED THIS THE 17th day of March 2008

                             JUDGMENT

A copy of the decision taken by the Poonjar Grama Panchayath

as decision No. VII(1) dated 23-2-2008 is shown to me by the learned

counsel for the Panchayath. This copy of the decision will be placed on

record in the case. In view of the above decision, both these writ

petitions are disposed of in the light of that decision.





                                           PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

ks

CRMC                                -2-

Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar enters appearance for the 2nd respondent.

Mr.T.M.Chandran enters appearance for the first respondent company,

which sought to be liquidated. Mr. Chandran seeks time for filing

counter. Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that there has been subsequent

development to the institution of the company petition. The first

respondent company has approached the 2nd respondent Bank for a

settlement of the entire liability and have already paid Rs.1.5 crores

and has assured to liquidate the entire liability by 29th June 2008.

Mr.Chandran submits that till such time as counter is filed by the first

respondent, the first respondent will not alienate the property which

is described in Annexure-4. The above submission is recorded and in

view of the above submission, there will be an order restraining the

first respondent company from alienating the property in question for

a period of two weeks.

Post on 7-2-2008.

ks.