High Court of KeralaWP(C)/9574/2015dismissed

Surya Narayanan v. The Manager, Canara Bank

2015-06-17Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/27TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9574 of 2015 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER :- ---------------------- SURYA NARAYANAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE SANKARA NARAYANAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, TRIKKANGODE AMSOM, CHOROTTUR DESAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------------

1. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SHORANUR KULAPPULLY SSI BRANCH, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001.

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE 2, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001.

R1 BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BANK R2 BY SMT.M.T.SHEEBA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9574 of 2015 (V) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :- ------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE VARIOUS RECEIPTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 :- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 05.03.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 :- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION 3533/2015 DATED 04.02.2015.

EXHIBIT P4 :- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK DATED 20.03.2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL ---------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.9574 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court challenging the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated by the Bank. The total demand is about 28,84,000/-.

₹ 2.

This Court on 25.03.2015 ordered that the petitioner shall pay 5 lakhs as a condition for stay on or before ₹ 30.04.2015. It is admitted that the petitioner failed to pay the amount ordered by this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner disputes the liability and he may be also given sufficient time to discharge the entire liabilities. 4.

I am of the view petitioner having failed to honour the interim order of this Court I do not find any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. To work out alternative remedies available to the petitioner, all coercive steps against the

W.P.(C)No.9574 of 2015 petitioner shall be deferred for a period of one month. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE