Dismissed

K.K.Alikutty v. the Deputy Tahsildar

Kerala HC9 Jan 2007WP(C)/390/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging fresh recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner for default in complying with a prior interim order to pay one-third of the recoverable amount. The court found no merit as the petitioner failed to pay or seek time extension.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; fresh recovery proceedings against the petitioner were upheld.

K.K.Alikutty Vs the Deputy Tahsildar — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2007 / 19TH PAUSHA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 390 of 2007(U) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

---------------

¶8

K.K.ALIKUTTY, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RUSSEL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

-----------------

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-17.

¶13

2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE AT VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, K.F.C., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE, KALOOR, COCHIN-17.

¶15

4. TELWIN AUGUSTINE, ALUMKAL HOUSE, PAI ROAD, PALLURUTHY P.O., COCHIN.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R.RAMAN, J.

¶19

```````````````````````````

¶20

W.P.(C) NO. 390 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2007

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner approached this court earlier by filing WP(c) No.25790/2004. Hence this writ petition was posted along with other Writ petition. It is seen that an interim order was passed on 27/09/2004 where under this court directed the petitioner to pay 1/3^rd of the amount and granted a stay of the recovery of the balance amount. There was also a further direction to the respondents to proceed against the other guarantors and borrowers for recovery of the balance amount immediately and file a representation before this court within one month. Admittedly, the 1/3^rd amount required to be paid by the petitioner was not paid. As such there is no stay for the collection of the balance amount. In such circumstances fresh proceedings were taken against the petitioner.

¶24

The challenge made in this writ petition is against the said proceedings taken on the default of the petitioner in making the payment of 1/3^rd . I do not find any good reason to interfere with the present recovery proceedings. The petitioner did not

¶25

WPC 390/2007

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

move for any enlargement of time. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶28

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

¶30

K.K.Alikutty v. the Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Alikutty v. the Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Abdul Raheem Vs K.S.E.B

M/S.Spices Trading Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sreejith Menon Vs Sales Tax Officer, Sales Tax Office

V.a.Sajid Vs the Secretary, Rta, Thiruvananthapuram

Babu.K.K. Vs Secretary,Rta,Malappuram

K.Sankarankutty Vs Rta, Thrissur.