High Court Kerala High Court

Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 1 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 1 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5319 of 2004(G)


1. NARAYANAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R),

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

 Dated :01/09/2008

 O R D E R
                              P.R. RAMAN, J.
                               = = = = = = = =
                          W.P.(C) NO. 5319/2004
                               = = = = = = = =

         DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008.

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P4 and P8 and seeks for a direction to

the first respondent to recalculate the amount claimed in Ext.P2, after

giving notice to him.

2. It is contended that as per Ext.P2 the actual liability of his late

father is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, though in Ext.P2 an amount of

Rs.2,55,818.23 is claimed by way of interest at the rate of 18%, which is

stated to be unsustainable. Petitioner is the brother of one Viswanathan

Nair who died on 7.2.2004. According to the petitioner, the property

belong to both of them and hence on the death of Viswanathan Nair, the

legal representatives ought to have been given notice. Ext.P8 notice is

without issuing such notice to the legal representatives of deceased

Viswanathan Nair and hence unsustainable in law.

3. This Court, by order dated 13.2.2004, granted a stay of

confirmation of sale on condition that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be

paid by the petitioner, within a period of one week therefrom. It is pointed

WP(C)5319/2004 :2:

out by the learned Government Pleader that the said condition has not been

complied with by the petitioner and hence he has flouted the order of this

court. On that sole ground, this writ petition is dismissed.

P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)

knc/-