Dismissed

G.Gopakumar v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC11 Mar 2011OP(C)/76/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, a petition in a money recovery matter for non-compliance with an interim order directing payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. justice Sankaran dismissed the petitioner. The court dismissed the original petition because the petitioner failed to comply with an interim order dated 20.1.2011 that directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs within one month or risk dismissal. The petitioner's counsel

What did the court decide?

Original Petition dismissed for non-compliance with interim order directing payment of Rs. 2 lakhs.

G.Gopakumar Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 76 of 2011(O) ----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.322/2009 IN OS.304/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶3

PETITIONER/IST JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/IST DEFENDANT

¶4

----------------------------------------------------------------G.GOPAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MEMANAD HOUSE, SREEKAILAS NAGAR, KALARCODE, ALAPPUZHA - 7. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MULLAKKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.

¶6

ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶8

O.P.(C).No.76 of 2011

¶9

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

When the Original Petition came up for admission on 20.1.2011, the following order was passed :

¶12

"Advocate Sri.Chandran Pillai appears for the respondent.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.2 lakhs within a period of one month and for the balance amount, instalment facility may be granted.

¶14

The learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within one month, the Bank is not against granting a reasonable instalment facility.

¶15

Accordingly, there will be an interim order directing the petitioner to pay to the

¶16

O.P.(C) No.76 of 2011

¶17

¶18

decree holder or deposit for the payment for decree holder, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within one month from today. If the petitioner fails to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, the Original Petition itself will stand dismissed."

¶19

It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶20

for the respondent that the interim order was not complied with by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions. Time was granted. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no instructions have been furnished by the petitioner.

¶21

Since the interim order dated 20.1.2011 was not complied with by the petitioner, this Original Petition is dismissed.

¶22

K.T.SANKARAN

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

csl

G.Gopakumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gopakumar v. State Bank of India

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

P.a.Amy Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Saramma George Vs K.C.Varkey

Gopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Akru @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Paul Thomas Vs Abraham

Latin Catholic Arch Diocese Vs M.Bhuvanachandran