IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26642 of 2010(E)
1. PARIYARATH RAVEENDRAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANJERI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
... Respondent
2. SUNIL KUMAR.N.M,S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY @
3. ARBITRATOR,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COURT,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No.26642 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner stood as a guaranteer to the second
respondent to enable him to avail a loan from the first
respondent. However, the second respondent committed
continuous default in the matter of repayment. In the said
circumstances, the first respondent, based on the award in
A.R.C No. 1343/2008 under Section 70 of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act, initiated recovery proceeding against
the petitioner and the second respondent. Award in A.R.C No.
1343/2008 was an ex-parte award. As per the said award the
first respondent is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.
12,10,485/- together with future interest @16% per annum
from the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner
took up the matter in appeal before the Kerala Co-operative
Tribunal as Appeal Petition No. 49/2010. A conditional order
of stay was granted in the said appeal. It is challenging the
conditions imposed while granting the stay that this writ
petition has been filed. As per the order of stay passed by the
Tribunal viz., Ext.P4 order the petitioner has been directed to
WPC.26642/2010
: 2 :
deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on or before 8.9.2010.
Considering the fact that the first respondent is entitled to
recover a total sum of Rs.12,10,485/- as per the award under
challenge before the tribunal and that the tribunal has passed
an interim order requiring the petitioner to deposit only an
amount of Rs.4 lakhs, I am not inclined to interfere with
Ext.P4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that on account of financial constraints
the petitioner could not comply with the conditions imposed as
per Ext.P4, and prayed for granting extension of time
originally granted as per Ext.P4. In the said circumstances,
the time limit specified in Ext.P4 for payment of Rs. 4 lakhs is
extended by one month and in case the petitioner pays the
amount directed to be deposited as per Ext.P4 on or before
8.10.2010 it should be taken as compliance with Ext.P4 and
the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal shall proceed to consider the
appeal in accordance with law.
Subject to the above this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge