Disposed

M. Bhaskaran v. Inspecting Asst.Commr, Sales Tax Office

Kerala HC20 Oct 2008WP(C)/22554/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order addressed a writ petition involving sureties for a debt facility. The court directed that if the petitioner or fifth respondent pays the remaining outstanding, they will be discharged, without prejudice to their right to sue the fourth respondent for reimbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directed that payment of remaining outstandings by petitioner discharges them, preserving right to sue fourth respondent for reimbursement.

M. Bhaskaran Vs Inspecting Asst.Commr, Sales… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 22554 of 2008(I)

PETITIONER:

M.BHASKARAN, S/O BALAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, SREEVALSAM, PERUNGODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶14

SALES TAX OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, PALAKKAD.

¶16

THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THEKKEGRAMAM BRANCH, THEKKEGRAMAM, CHITTUR.

¶17

MAHESWARI, W/O RADHAKRISHNAN, KARAKKOLA KULAMB, VANDITHAVALAM P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

SURESH V, S/O VELAYUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 48, SECRETARY, KANNADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R3 ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R5

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) NO. 22554 OF 2008 (I)

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2008

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The fourth respondent availed a facility from the third respondent. The petitioner and fifth respondent are sureties. As of now, the remaining outstandings is around Rs.8,000/-, towards legal fee etc. Neither the petitioner nor the fifth respondent has a case that they are not liable to pay such amount also. At any rate, they will be entitled to sue the fourth respondent for reimbursement. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner or the fifth respondent pays all the entire remaining outstandings, they will stand discharged and without being precluded to sue the fourth respondent, in accordance with law. All other issues are left open.

¶26

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶27

skr/21/10

¶28

// True copy //

¶29

P.A. to Judge.

M. Bhaskaran v. Inspecting Asst.Commr, Sales Tax Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Bhaskaran v. Inspecting Asst.Commr, Sales Tax Office

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

Eldo P.John Vs State of Kerala and 4 Others

Union of India,Rep.by Secy.to Govt.& Ors. Vs M.Thampy Cherian & 2 Others

Trikaripur Ksheera Vyavasaya Co-Op.Socie Vs Deputy Director,Dairy Development Depart

Annamanada Kaliman Vyavasaya Sahakarana Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Biju Paramu Vs the Manager, Bank of Rajastan Limited

Mrithula Jayadeep Vs Asst.General Manager and 3 Others