High Court Kerala High Court

Purushothaman Pillai vs The Manager on 11 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Purushothaman Pillai vs The Manager on 11 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31531 of 2004(D)


1. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, KALAPPURACKAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.WILSON URMESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :11/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                      KURIAN JOSEPH , J

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

                                  W.P.(C) NO. 31531 OF 2004

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

                              Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007.


                                           JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

i) set aside the order dated 03.03.2004 in Appeal No. 771/2001 by

the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and

to direct the Respondent to pay the Cheque amount of

Rs.25,000/- with appropriate interest from 10.01.2000 till this date

and such other amount as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper

as compensation to the petitioner or

2) In the alternative permit the petitioner to seek appropriate civil and

criminal proceedings against the Drawee of the cheque in the

subject matter of Appeal No. 771/2001 before the Kerala State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (O.P. No. a 151/2000

before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Alappuzha) and the Respondent herein, in spite of the bar of

limitation occurred for the same due to the pendancy of O.P. No. a

151/2000 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Alappuzha and Appeal No. 771/2001 before the Kerala State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

As far as the first prayer is concerned, it is for the petitioner to

pursue the matter before the National Commission and as far as the

second prayer is concerned, the drawee of the cheque is not on the party

array and hence the matter cannot be considered. Therefore, without

prejudice to the liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter in appropriate

proceedings with all the affected parties on the party array, this writ petition

is dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

rv