High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Abdul Khader vs The Central Bank Of India … on 18 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Abdul Khader vs The Central Bank Of India … on 18 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33056 of 2008(I)


1. MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN-
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA TRIVANDRUM
                       ...       Respondent

2. KASIM SHAFI S/O. OSNAR KUNJU

3. SHAKKELA D/O.KHADIJA BEEVI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KISHORE

                For Respondent  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN(B/O)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :18/12/2008

 O R D E R
              THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) NO.33056 OF 2008 (I)
              ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner states that he has certain rights over an

item of property against which distress proceedings are initiated at

the instance of the first respondent bank and that no security could

have been created in view of the decree in O.S.No.276/1998. The

matter is essentially, allegations and counter allegations between the

petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. When this matter came up for

consideration, on 10-11-2008, it was ordered that if either among the

petitioner or respondents 2 and 3 pays off the outstandings, the bank

would submit all documents before the Civil Court where the

petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are litigating. On 18-11-2008,

respondents 2 and 3 submitted that they would settle the

transaction. Again, on 3-12-2008, the same submission was

repeated and recorded. Until now, no deposit is made. Today, the

W.P.(C) No.33056/2008

– 2 –

learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 states that his clients

have not responded in spite of a letter. Obviously, parties are not

willing to proceed with this case. This writ petition fails and the same

is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the

petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to litigate inter se.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

skr/20/12

// True copy //
P.A. to Judge.