Disposed

The Thirumullavaram Vanitha Welfare Co-Operative Bank v. Deepa

Kerala HC22 Sept 2016RP/680/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the underlying writ judgment causing financial stress for the cooperative bank. The bank was directed to pay 50% of the due amount within three months and the remaining 50% within another three months. Respondents were also ordered to ensure compliance, and the review petition was disposed.

What did the court decide?

The bank directed to pay 50% of the due amount within three months and the balance 50% within a further period of three months.

The Thirumullavaram Vanitha Welfare Co-Operative Bank… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 680 of 2016 ()

¶6

WP(C) 12242/2016 of THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE THIRUMULLAVARAM VANITHA WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. Q-1094, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶11

1. DEEPA, D/O.MACCIGA, DEEPU BHAVAN,KOLLAM 691012

¶12

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY PO,KOLLAM 691013

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O, KOLLAM 691001

¶14

R1 BY SRI.B.MOHANLAL R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2016, ALONG WITH COC. 1267/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 5872 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR DT 9/12/2014. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE LETTER DT 1/12/2004. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DT 9/2/2015. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE LETTER 13/4/2015. ANNEXURE A5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN DT IS 17/6/2016. ANNEXURE A6: COPY OF THE LETTER DT 25/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. REGISTRAR.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶26

R.P.No.680 OF 2016 in

¶27

W.P.(C)NO.12242 OF 2016 & C.O.C.1267 OF 2016

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This review petition is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition seeking to review the judgment on the ground that the review petitioner was not heard in the writ petition. True, when the matter was taken up for hearing, even though notice was served on the third respondent, there was no appearance. It was under such constrained circumstances without hearing the review petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. The above referred contempt case is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, complaining that in spite of the directions contained in the judgment the directives are not complied with by the third respondent in the writ petition, who is the review petitioner. Subject matter of the review petition and the contempt case are

¶31

R.P.No.680 OF 2016 in W.P.(C)NO.12242 OF 2016 &

¶32

C.O.C.1267 OF 2016 2

¶33

connected and they are heard together and propose to pass a common judgment.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

¶35

The sole submission made by the counsel for the review petitioner in the review petition is that, the bank is utter financial constraints which prevents the bank from making the payment within the time frame fixed by this court in the judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that, petitioner is innocent in the matter and therefore the writ petitioner is entitled to get back the amount deposited with the bank on its maturity as of right. However, taking into account the circumstances put forth by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, I am satisfied that a modification

¶36

C.O.C.1267 OF 2016 3

¶37

R.P.No.680 OF 2016 in W.P.(C)NO.12242 OF 2016 &

¶38

with respect to the time frame provided in the judgment can be granted. Therefore, the bank is directed to pay 50% of the amount due to the writ petitioner within three months and the balance 50% within a further period of three months thereafter. It is also made clear that respondents 1 and 2 shall also ensure that the writ petitioner is paid the amount as directed above.

¶39

The judgment is modified to the above extent and the review petition is closed accordingly. In view of the modification made in the judgment, I do not think that anything survives in the contempt case to be considered. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to move contempt petition if the modified judgment is not complied with by the respondents.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶42

R.AV

The Thirumullavaram Vanitha Welfare Co-Operative Bank v. Deepa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Thirumullavaram Vanitha Welfare Co-Operative Bank v. Deepa

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

Joann Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

Prasannakumari Vs Union of India

Geetha Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation

Dr.Thomas Mattathil Vs the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry

K.N. Shibu Vs Antony Chacko

V.a.Gireesan Vs Sri.Antony Chacko