Dismissed

George Varghese v. 1ST Addl.District Court,Thiruvananthapur

Kerala HC6 Aug 2016WP(C)/13290/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam disposed of a writ petition filed by George Varghese seeking directions to allow the official receiver in an insolvency proceeding. The court observed that despite a previous order directing the petitioner to file a petition, no steps were taken. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

George Varghese Vs 1ST Addl.District… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13290 of 2007 (R)

¶6

AS 60/2003 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM. OP IP 2/1998 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

GEORGE VARGHESE, MALAYIL HOUSE, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1.THE IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2.DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3.REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

4.P.K.ALEXANDER, SECRETARY,

¶15

MALAYIL BANKERS CREDITORS ASSOCIATION, NEAR KERALA LAW CHAMBER BUILDING, COLLECTORATE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

5.MRS.NASEEM SHUKUR KHAN, ADVOCATE - OFFICIAL RECEIVER (PART TIME),

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

mbr/

¶21

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.13290 of 2007

¶23

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the third respondentRegistrar (Subordinate Judiciary), High Court of Kerala to allow the 5^th respondent as the official receiver in OP(IP) No.2 of 1998 pending before the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram till the liability of the insolvents in the above case towards their creditors is discharged. When the writ petition came up for admission on 12.4.2007, this Court passed the following order:

¶26

“Counsel for the petitioner is unable to substantiate as to how the respondents 1 to 3 can be impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. Counsel submits that he is filing a petition to delete the respondents 1 to 3 from the party array. File appropriate petition and put up. Post tomorrow”.

¶27

It is seen that even though the case was posted on 13.4.2007, it was posted after vacation on that day. Thereafter no steps were taken either as directed by this Court on 12.4.2007 or to move the writ petition for admission. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/- P.V.ASHA

rkc

true copy

PA to Judge

George Varghese v. 1ST Addl.District Court,Thiruvananthapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Varghese v. 1ST Addl.District Court,Thiruvananthapur

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

Bpl Limited Vs Registrar of Companies

Minimol M.T. Vs State of Kerala & Others

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs Canara Bank

P.K.Alexander Vs the Ist Addl.Sub Court,Thiruvananthapura

Valsakumari.K. Vs the Director,Higher Secondary Education

K.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala