High Court Kerala High Court

Santhosh J.Kappen vs Kottayam District Co-Operative … on 8 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
Santhosh J.Kappen vs Kottayam District Co-Operative … on 8 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11552 of 2005(A)


1. SANTHOSH J.KAPPEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC, DCB, KTM

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

 Dated :08/02/2011

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 11552 OF 2005
              .........................................................................
                   Dated this the 8th February , 2011



                                   J U D G M E N T

The steps taken by the respondent Bank resorting to the

provisions under the SARFAESI Act, notwithstanding the

proceedings pursuant to filing of ARC No.41/96 for realisation of

the amount due under a loan transaction, were sought to be

challenged by the petitioner by filing the above Writ Petition.

2. When the matter came up for consideration before this

Court on 06.04.2005, coercive steps were intercepted on

condition that the petitioner satisfied a sum of ` 8,00,000/-

( Rupees eight lakhs only) within one week, making it clear that

the interim order would stand vacated automatically, if the

condition was not satisfied. The petitioner did not choose to

satisfy the condition, as taken note of by this Court on

04.07.2005 and also on 22.08.2005, whereby it was made clear

that no interim order of stay was in existence.

W.P.(C) No. 11552 OF 2005

2

3. When the matter is taken up today for final hearing,

there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the

petitioner is no more interested in the cause of action projected

in the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is dismissed for default/non prosecution.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk