IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30730 of 2008(G)
1. NARAYANAN NAIR, KARIAT HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARBITRATOR CUM SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.30730 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard.
The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent.
He defaulted repayment. That led to arbitration proceedings
under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules in 2000.
Against the award passed thereon, the petitioner filed a revision
before the Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an
interim order of stay on condition of remitting Rs.60,000/-.
When the revision was taken up finally, the Tribunal granted the
petitioner 10 instalments to repay the entire outstandings, with a
default clause. Against that, the petitioner filed W.P(C).
15836/06. An interim order was passed in that writ petition
requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as a
condition for stay. That amount was not remitted. Ultimately,
when that writ petition was taken up for final hearing, the
petitioner stated, through his counsel, that he is ready and
WPC.30730/08
Page numbers
willing to pay the amounts and he may be given some more time
to pay the amounts and also prayed for the benefit of One Time
Settlement scheme. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment,
directing that if the petitioner remits an amount of Rupees One
Lakh and makes appropriate representation, that will be
considered and decision taken. This was way back on
20.9.2006. Nothing happened thereafter. There was no
payment, no representation. At this distant point of time, merely
because the petitioner holds out certain medical documents to
show that he is under treatment, which fact situation was
available even in 2006, I do not find any ground to further
interfere in favour of the petitioner, having particular regard to
the submissions made before this Court at the final hearing of
Ext.P5 writ petition confining the petitioner’s request only for
further time and because more than two years have elapsed even
after that. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
WPC.30730/08
Page numbers
It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the
way of the petitioner having the sale set aside or averting
confirmation of the sale, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.