Disposed

Thankamani v. Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010WP(C)/5514/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an agricultural labourer facing attachment for a loan default, approached the High Court directing the arbitration execution authority to expeditiously dispose of her representation regarding inconsistently stated dues. The court directed the authority to pass orders within six weeks after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Thankamani Vs Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 5514 of 2010(L)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶7

THANKAMANI , W/O.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, VELLAMKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.NGARIPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN, MR.R.MANIKANTAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1632, P.O.NAGARIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1632, P.O.NAGARIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SALE OFFICER, ARBITRATION EXECUTION INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD.

¶14

R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5514 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is an agricultural labourer. She had availed a loan from the first respondent bank for the purpose of construction of a house. However, there was default in repayment of the loan and the same is now remaining unpaid. The bank has therefore attached her property. The bank has also obtained an award against the petitioner from the arbitrator. The petitioner contends that she was not served with any notice in the above proceedings. However, since the amount demanded from the petitioner as per the different notices issued by the first respondent bank shows different amounts, the petitioner contends that it has not been possible for her to settle the amount due to the bank. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the third respondent. Though the same is dated 3.11.2009, she contends that no orders have been passed thereon till date. The petitioner prays for appropriate directions for

¶21

wpc No.5514/2010 2

¶22

the disposal of Ext.P8.

¶23

In view of the limited relief that is sought for, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. It is sufficient that the Writ Petition itself is disposed of directing an early disposal of Ext.P8.

¶24

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this Writ Petition as well as a certified copy of the judgment before the third respondent for early compliance.

¶25

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶26

css/

Thankamani v. Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamani v. Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank

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

Pathanapuram Bock Housing Co-Operative B Vs Joint Registrar (General) and Others

Secretary Qae Society Vs Secretary Rta Pathanamthitta

Joy Cherian Vs the Assitant Registrar

A.K.Subramanian Vs Cochin Co-Operative Agricultural and Rur

Shyja M. Vs K.P.S.C., Kozhikode & Others

The Chamber of Commerce Vs State of Kerala