Loading...
Responsive image

Cherian Varghese vs Recovery Officer on 13 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Cherian Varghese vs Recovery Officer on 13 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21621 of 2010(C)


1. CHERIAN VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY
                       ...       Respondent

2. GEORGE KOSHY,S/O.K.G.KOCHUKOSHY,

3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PANDALAM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :13/07/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ..............................................................................
                     W.P.(C) No. 21621 OF 2010
               .........................................................................
                         Dated this the 13th July , 2010



                                    J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging the correctness and

sustainability of the sale conducted by the concerned respondent

for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan

transaction. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition

including the contention that the proceedings are barred by law

of limitation .

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as

well.

3. Going by the materials on record, it is very much

clear that the impugned order, which has been passed by the first

respondent is appealable under the relevant provisions of law.

That apart, to substantiate the contentions raised by the

petitioner, it may be necessary to adduce evidence as well.

4. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it as a

W.P.(C) No. 21621 OF 2010

2

fit case warranting interference, invoking the discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, interference is declined, however, without prejudice

to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order

by resorting to statutory remedy.

The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information