Quashed

K.K.Poulose v. Mary Mathew & Another.

Kerala HC13 Oct 2008WP(C)/1729/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam quashed an impugned order passed without hearing the petitioner. The Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's request, hear both parties, and appoint a hearing date within two months, aided by attendance marking.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and it was directed that the Second Respondent will consider the request of the petitioner, hear him and the First Respondent within a period of two months.

K.K.Poulose Vs Mary Mathew & Another. — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 1729 of 2005(E)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

K.K.POULOSE, PRESIDENT, OONNUKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E.58, OONNUKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY, ADV. SRI.R.KIRAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. MARY MATHEW, PEECHATTE HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶14

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD FOR R2, ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R1.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C). NO.1729/2005-E:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/07/2001 OF THE R.2.

¶21

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 4041/02 DTD. 24/11/2003 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶22

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 31/08/2002 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 20/12/03 SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE PETITIONER BANK.

¶24

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER BANK.

¶25

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/08/04 ALONG WITH RESOLUTION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE R.1.

¶26

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 02/11/04 SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE R.2.

¶27

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/12/04 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 24/12/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. IN C.R.P.1/8072/04.

¶29

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/12/2004 OF THE R.2.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 907 DTD. 21/04/1988.

¶32

EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 454 DTD. 26/04/1993.

¶33

EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE REQUEST AND THE DECISION DTD. 17/05/1995.

¶34

EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE LEAVE LETTER DTD. 19/06/1997 TO SHOW THAT BANK WAS AWARE OF PETITIONER'S KUWAIT ADDRESS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

prv.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶39

==================================

¶40

W.P.(C)No.1729 of 2005

¶41

==================================

¶42

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008.

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Petitioner states that he was not heard by the

¶45

second respondent before the impugned order was

¶46

issued. Specific allegations are made in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner and his counsel, who is appearing for him in this case, were present on the date fixed for hearing and that he sought time. It is stated that the petitioner and his counsel left after the matter was adjourned. However, the impugned order was later issued without hearing the petitioner. Under such circumstances, on the basis of the materials on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner is

¶47

entitled to an appropriate hearing. For the said reason, the impugned order is quashed and it is directed that the second respondent will consider the request of the petitioner, hear him and the

¶48

WPC1729/05

¶49

first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To

¶50

aid such process, it is directed that the petitioner and the first respondent will appear before the second respondent on 30-10-2008 to mark their attendance, so that the second respondent can schedule the date of hearing appropriately.

¶51

Writ petition ordered accordingly.

¶52

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.

¶53

sl.

K.K.Poulose v. Mary Mathew & Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Poulose v. Mary Mathew & Another.

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

Josekutty V.J Vs K.P.S.C

Jacob Manuel Vs the Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank Ltd.

Delson P.Davis Vs Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital

E.P.Gopinathan Vs Tom Jose and Another

P.v.Annakutty Vs Special Sale Officer

T.K.Hameed Vs Sales Officer, Palakkad Dist.Co.Op.Bank