IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1528 of 2009(F)
1. JOSEPH JOHN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, (HRD)
3. JAYSON.A.A.
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :27/02/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.1528 of 2009-F
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking relief in
relation to securitisation proceedings.
Petitioner had earlier obtained Ext.P1 judgment.
He did not pay the entire amounts covered by that
judgment. This writ petition is filed on the
strength of Ext.P3, an affidavit sworn to by one
S.Manilal who, in Ext.P3, stated that he had
advanced an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and had agreed
to purchase the property of the petitioner for
Rs.1 crore. This Court issued summons to the
said person to appear before Court to state on
the veracity of Ext.P3. Such an order was issued
because this Court was apprehensive of the
credibility of the said Manilal whose name has
often been noticed in different litigations. With
the aid of the computerisation of the High Court,
this Court could lay its hands on a few writ
petitions by Manilal and when he gave evidence
WP(C)1528/2009 -: 2 :-
before this Court, he did not deny having filed
other writ petitions and having also claimed the
status as an insolvent by filing an Insolvency
Petition before the Sub Court, Kottayam. The
Government had to get one of the writ petitions of
Manilal disposed of by obtaining a direction to
the Sub Court, Kottayam to dispose the Insolvency
Petition. It is that Manilal who has stated in
Ext.P3 that he would buy the petitioner’s property
for Rs.1 crore. In the normal course of events, I
would have ordered the Revenue Intelligence to
look into the ways, means and whereabouts, as also
the assets of Manilal. I desist from doing so in
this case for the simple reason that the learned
counsel for the petitioner states that this writ
petition is not pressed. The writ writ petition is
hence dismissed as not pressed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/020309