Loading...

P.V.Thamby vs The Deputy General Manager (L&R) on 8 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.V.Thamby vs The Deputy General Manager (L&R) on 8 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9319 of 2010(L)


1. P.V.THAMBY, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L&R),
                       ...       Respondent

2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,

3. DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY

4. P.V.KUNJAPPAN, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE,

5. P.V.CHUMMAR, S/O.P.C.VARGHESE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.D.GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :08/04/2010

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                      ------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No. 9319 OF 2010
                      ------------------------

                 Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank.

But, because of the default, the Bank proceeded with further

steps for recovering the due amount.

2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank

submits on instructions that the matter has become final by

virtue of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.

No.871/2009 as borne by Ext.P5, whereby it has been held as

follows ;

“In the facts and circumstances of the case
we are satisfied that as a last chance the
appellant/petitioner can be granted a further time
of six weeks from today to pay off the entire
outstanding balance as indicated in the statement
filed by the Bank on July 8,2009.”

The learned counsel further submits that after suffering the

above judgment, the petitioner did not choose to honour the

commitment and on the other hand, he filed a petition before the

Bank (Ext.P6) and some cursory payments were effected,

whereas the balance is still to be cleared in tune with the

WPC NO. 9319/2010 -2-

mandate given by the Division Bench as per Ext.P5 and hence

that no interference is called for.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

after Ext.P5 judgment the petitioner has effected some

payments. The petitioner approached this Court for issuance of

a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider

Ext.P6 sympathetically and pass appropriate orders. This Court

finds that absolutely no interference is warranted as the

petitioner has not chosen to avail the benefit given in Ext.P5

judgment. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is

dismissed.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

dpk

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information