IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 167 of 2010(E)
1. C.A UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CANARA BANK REP BY ITS MANAGER
... Respondent
2. SHRI T.S.VIJAYAN, S/O.T.S.NAMBOODIRI
3. SMT.SANDHYA ASHOKAN, CHANDRANAGAR
4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
5. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.167/2010 in W.P.(C).37846/2007-E
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010.
Order
1.This review petition is filed on the premise that
the finding in the judgment sought to be reviewed
that the petitioner did not have the locus standi
to file the writ petition and challenge the
impugned sale proceedings, is unsustainable. It
has been specifically held in the impugned
judgment that the right to complain about the
sale is definitely only with the person whose
property has been sold. This is how the
particular statutory provision has been construed
by this Court while considering whether the right
of the writ petitioner or his interest has been
affected by the impugned sale proceedings. There
is no error apparent on the face of the record of
the impugned judgment and the question raised has
not been left without being considered.
RP167/10 -: 2 :-
2.I may also notice that the issue raised with
regard to Section 68B of the Second Schedule to
the Income Tax Act was answered in WP(C).
1867/2008 arising from the same proceedings at
the instance of the father-in-law of the
petitioner herein, who is the guarantor to the
transaction.
I do not find any ground to exercise the review
jurisdiction on the aforesaid facts. This review
petition fails. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/1903