IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4147 of 2007(R)
1. E. JAFFER KHAN, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
2. MINI JAFFER KHAN, PROPRIETOR,
3. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, PROPRIETOR,
Vs
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. REGIONAL MANAGER,
4. SENIOER MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
For Respondent :SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :26/02/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.4147 OF 2007 &
I.A.2992 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
In mid December, 2006, the petitioner wanted a final
settlement by wiping off the entire outstandings. By the time the
writ petition is came up for admission on 7.2.2007, two months
have elapsed. It was noticed that the entire outstanding
amounts worked out to more than Rs.1,60,00,000/-, with interest
from 1.10.2006. These facts will show that the petitioner,
apparently, does not have even a prima facie case to sustain any
challenge against the impugned proceedings since when it was
pointed out by the petitioner that he intends to wipe off the
outstandings, it was directed, to prove the bonafides of the
petitioner, to deposit an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- within a
period of two weeks from then. Following that order on
7.2.2007, all that the petitioner did was to show that an
agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and
certain other persons and as a consequence the petitioner
deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Today, I.A.2992/07 was
WPC.4147/07
Page numbers
filed seeking that in view of the said sale agreement, the
petitioner may be granted the benefit of One Time Settlement
scheme and there may be a direction not to proceed with Ext.P7
possession notice.
2. The aforesaid facts would show that the petitioner has no
legal ground to challenge the impugned proceedings. That
apart, the petitioner is unable even to pay an amount of
Rs.55,00,000/- which is far less than 50% of the amount of
outstandings. An agreement for sale by itself would not change
the equities in favour of the petitioner.
After dictating the judgment to this extent, learned counsel
for the petitioner, after having urged the matter, seeks to
withdraw the petition. The writ petition and the I.A. are
dismissed as withdrawn.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
kkb.