Rajeev K Raj v. The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/8TH VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13261 of 2015 (G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. RAJEEV K. RAJ, AGED 35, S/O. MULAMOOTIL VEEDU, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM.
2. SREELEKHA, AGED 30, W/O. RAJEEV K. RAJ, CHAITRALAYAM HOUSE, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER IN CHARGE, KWA BUILDINGS, ANANDAVALLEESWARAM, KOLLAM-13.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/
WP(C).No. 13261 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5400/2014. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.2.2015 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9/2015 DATED 16.2.2015 BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 13261 OF 2015 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of April, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to stay the recovery proceedings initiated by the first respondent. Earlier the petitioner had approached this court and Ext.P1 order was passed wherein the petitioners were permitted to pay the defaulted arrears in instalments. It is submitted that not even a single pai has been paid as directed.
In the said circumstances, no reason for extending any further equity to the petitioner is discernible and the writ petition stands dismissed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE ncd