The petitioner, who had obtained an interim stay subject to payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, was found to have failed to comply with the court's directions by the due date. Consequently, the writ petition seeking to quash revenue recovery was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to comply with interim order to pay Rs. 10 lakhs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 2586 of 2016 (W)
PETITIONER:
ANWAR E., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE E.KUNHIKUTTY HAJI, PROPRIETOR, ALYAS DIGITAL SYSTEMS, THENNADI BEZAR, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 2586 of 2016 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT | P1- TRUE COPY ISSUED BY |
OF THE 2ND RE |
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05/06/2014 SPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2- TRUE COPY LETTER DAT |
OF THE ED 01/ |
ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT SANCTION 06/2015. |
| EXHIBIT | P3- TRUE COPY |
OF THE | PAY-IN-SLIP DATED 08/06/2015. |
| EXHIBIT | P4- TRUE COPY |
OF THE | RECEIPT DATED 30/09/2015. |
| RESPOND | ENT(S)' EXHIBITS: | NIL | |
| ------- | ---------------- | //TRUE COPY// | |
| P.S. TO JUDGE |
mbr/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. W.P.(C).No.2586 of 2016
............................................................. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who had approached this Court aggrieved by the revenue recovery action initiated against him at the instance of the respondent bank, was granted an interim order, on condition that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 30.03.2016. When the matter called up for orders today, it is submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the directions of this Court in the interim order dated 29.02.2016. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present writ petition.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/31.3.16
W.P.(C). No. of
-2-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 after failing to comply with interim directions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anwar E.
Canara Bank, SME Branch, Kullappully
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
