Disposed

The Senior Manager, Kerala State Co-Op. v. Vayakkara Patannakkot Madhusoodanan

Kerala HC9 Jun 2009RP/452/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition clarified that an observation on the amount due in the underlying writ petition was merely a record of the petitioners' statement, not a binding finding. Consequently, the bank was clarified that it can insist on recovering the entire amount due.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was granted to clarify that the bank can recover the entire amount due.

The Senior Manager, Kerala State Co-Op. Vs Vayakkara… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 452 of 2009(W) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10621/2009 Dated 06/04/2009 ....................

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:

¶7

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

¶8

THE SENIOR MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANNUR BRANCH, R.M. APARTMENTS, SOUTH BAZAR, TALAP, KANNUR-670 002.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC:

¶11

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

¶12

1. VAYAKKARA PATANAKKOT MADHUSOODANAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LAKSHMI @ MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 76 YEARS, THILLANKERI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. THILLANKERI, THALASSERI TALUK.

¶13

2. V.P.NARAYANA DAS @ VAYAKKARA PATANNAKKOT NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LAKSHMI @ MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, THILLANKERI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.THILLANKERI, THALASSERI TALUK.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. K.V.PAVITHRAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

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

¶19

R.P.452/2009 in W.P.(C).10621/2009-W

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2009.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This review petition is filed by the first respondent in the writ petition essentially on the premises that it feels tied down to the statement in the judgment, "the entire amounts due, which will come to Rs.2,35,000/- plus interest". The said observation in the judgment is not a finding at all. All that has been recorded is the statement on behalf of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition that they give up all other contentions and that the entire amounts due would be paid. It was the statement of the petitioners in the writ petition that the amount is Rs.2,35,000/- plus interest. The said statement in the judgment sought to be

¶24

RP452/09 -: 2 :-

¶25

reviewed does not conclude the bank from recovering the entire amount that is due and insisting on payment of the entire amounts notwithstanding such statement in the judgment. It is so clarified. The review petition is ordered accordingly.

¶26

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100609

The Senior Manager, Kerala State Co-Op. v. Vayakkara Patannakkot Madhusoodanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Senior Manager, Kerala State Co-Op. v. Vayakkara Patannakkot Madhusoodanan

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

Albert Jerone Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Sameer Vs Directorate Board

T.Anandan Vs Meenangadi Grama Panchayath

Sajjid Pasha Vs Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd.

Shyju Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.J.Peter Vs State of Kerala