Allowed

The Special Sale Officer/Inspector v. v.Binu

Kerala HC23 Jul 2012RP/618/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judge allowed a review petition filed by a special sale officer to set aside a previous order directing payment of a specific amount to a debtor, on grounds of an apparent mistake in the record regarding the true dues. Counsel was granted time to file replies.

What did the court decide?

Previous order dated 13.06.2012 set aside; time granted to respondents to file replies by 01.08.2012.

The Special Sale Officer/Inspector Vs v.Binu — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012/1ST SRAVANA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 618 of 2012 (P) IN WPC/13348/2012 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.13348/2012 DATED 13-06-2012

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.C:

¶7

THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF COP-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KOLLAM-PIN 691508

¶8

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI D.SOMASUNDARAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.C :

¶10

V.BINU

¶11

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AKKARAVILA VEEDU, NILAMEL

¶12

KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691535.

¶13

KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶14

KADAKKAL BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

KADAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA OFFICE OF THE

¶16

JOINT REGISTRAR OF KOLLAM,

¶17

PIN-691 506.

¶18

BY SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR,SC,KOLLAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶20

ON 23-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

RP.No. 618 of 2012 (P) IN WPC/13348/2012

¶22

A P P E N D I X

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.04.2012. ANNEXURE-II:TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 30.06.2010.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.A TO JUDGE

¶27

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶28

R.P.618 of 2012 in W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012-P

¶29

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The 2^nd respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this petition seeking a review of the judgment dated 13.06.2012 in W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012. As per the judgment sought to be reviewed, the writ petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,255/- to the 1^st respondent, Co-operative Bank (the 2^nd respondent in the R.P) before the sale that was proposed to be conducted on 14.06.2012. On receipt of the said amount, the Cooperative bank has been directed to credit the said amount to the account of the writ petitioner in full and final settlement of all its claims against him.

¶32

According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the amount Rs.1,21,255/- was mentioned in the sale notice by a mistake committed by the review petitioner, the Special Sale

¶33

R.P.618 of 2012 in W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012-P 2

¶34

Officer. The actual amount payable by the writ petitioner is much higher and therefore, the direction of this Court to receive the amount remitted by the writ petitioner in full and final settlement of all the claims of the petitioner against the writ petitioner is not warranted. The mistake occurred because the above fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court while finally disposing of the Writ Petition. The 1^st respondent herein is the writ petitioner.

¶35

I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader Sri D.Somasundaram, who appears for the review petitioner, Advocate Alexander George, who appears for the 1^st respondent and Sri T.R.Harikumar, who appears for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

The Writ Petition was finally disposed of on the assumption that the amount shown in Ext.P1 sale notice represented the actual amount due and payable by the 1^st respondent herein to the 2^nd respondent herein. Since it is submitted by the review petitioner that the amount shown in Ext.P1 was a mistake, there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment.

¶37

R.P.618 of 2012 in W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012-P

¶38

¶39

For the above reason, this Review Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 13.06.2012 in W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012 is reviewed and set aside. W.P(c) No.13348 of 2012

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondents seek time for filing statements.

¶41

Time is granted. Post on 01.08.2012.

¶42

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶43

rtr/

The Special Sale Officer/Inspector v. v.Binu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Sale Officer/Inspector v. v.Binu

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

C.Babu Vs State of Kerala

V.U.Afsal Vs Sale Officer

Sudha Sreekumar Vs Regional Transport Authority

The Managing Director Vs C.S.Surendran

The Managing Director Vs Kripalini

Vijayan A.P Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kozhikode