Allowed

P.G.Sreenivasan v. the Secretary,Malappuram District

Kerala HC11 Feb 2008WP(C)/398/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding execution of an arbitration award, the High Court refused to indefinitely withhold proceedings but granted a last opportunity. The petitioner, a surety who defaulted on a one-time settlement arrangement, was hospitalized. The court directed that execution would be dropped if the full amount was remitted by the end of the financial year.

What did the court decide?

Execution proceedings deferred to 4.4.2008; directed to be dropped if full amount remitted by end of current financial year.

P.G.Sreenivasan Vs the Secretary,Malappuram District — Cooperative Societies | 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 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 398 of 2008(V)

¶6

---------------------------------------EP.153/2007 of SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

P.G.SREENIVASAN, S/O. KUNJIKULANGARA BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUNIYIL KEEZHUPARAMBU AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SR. GP. SMT. A.G.ANEETHA FOR R2.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 398 of 2008(V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2006 IN W.P.(C).NO. 30584/2006.

¶22

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT.

¶23

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.5.2007.

¶24

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

BKN

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 398 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2008. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner suffered an arbitration award. That was put in execution. He moved this court contending that he is only a surety and that he may be granted the benefit of one time settlement scheme. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 22.11.2006, the bank was directed to take a decision on the request for one time settlement. It was also directed that the petitioner who is the surety and the principle debtor shall be bound by the orders passed by the bank. The bank extended the benefit, by granting 10 instalments. However, the petitioner remitted only one instalment, that too by making two payments. The rest was defaulted. The principal debtor is, obviously, not interested in repaying the loan. After the period fixed in terms of one time settlement, it is contended in this writ petition that the petitioner is suffering from diabetes and had to be hospitalised. I am not impressed to hold that execution petition should be withheld further. The bank is also justified in opposing, having regard to

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 398 OF 2008

¶35

¶36

the attitude of the petitioner and contending that having defaulted repayment in terms of one time settlement scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits the entire amounts due by the end of the current financial year, execution proceedings shall be dropped. It is further directed that proceedings on the basis of execution petitioner pending before the Sub Court, Manjeri, as E.P. No. 149/04 shall stand deferred to 4.4.2008 as a last opportunity.

¶38

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

bkn/-

P.G.Sreenivasan v. the Secretary,Malappuram District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Sreenivasan v. the Secretary,Malappuram District

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

M.J.Thomas Vs Secretary,Corporation of Cochin

P.D.Stephen Vs State of Kerala

M.Chandrasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Latha Lalan Vs Johney Sebastian

Sundaran Karuvankandiyil Vs Pushparajan

P.Gopinath Vs Elavoor Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.