Yatheendran.S vs Shri. K.P. Sureshkumar on 31 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Yatheendran.S vs Shri. K.P. Sureshkumar on 31 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1444 of 2008(S)


1. YATHEENDRAN.S,PRESIDENT, GURUKRIPA HINDU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHRI. K.P. SURESHKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHRI. B. ANILKUMAR, THE SALE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :31/10/2008

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                Cont. Case (C).No.1444 OF 2008
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008


                              JUDGMENT

This contempt case is filed with reference to judgment in

W.P(C).21891/08. The petitioner herein is the writ petitioner.

Reference hereinafter is made on the basis of the status of

parties in the writ petition.

The third respondent is a primary co-operative bank. It had

advanced a loan to one person by name Reghunath. He did not

repay. The third respondent, therefore, initiated proceedings

under the CARD Bank Act. A portion of the property was sold in

auction. The institution represented by the petitioner

purchased that item. With that, the provisions of the CARD Bank

Act operate and the purchaser gets title. It appears that after

the mortgage was created in favour of the third respondent,

there was certain criminal proceedings against the debtor

Reghunath and the learned Magistrate has issued an order of

COC.1444/08

Page numbers

attachment as a distress action, by which, the property is under

attachment of a criminal court. Obviously therefore, there will

be some confusion regarding the registration of the transfer in

favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, no case of

contempt of court comes out, though the third respondent bank

has to take effective steps to clear the muddle by moving the

competent civil court in relation to the attachment and obtain

orders. Without prejudice to that course, this contempt case is

closed.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *