Johny and Another vs Puthur Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 04, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1277019

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1277019
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Jun 04, 2026
Case Number: WP(C)/21946/2008
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Johny and Another

Respondent

Puthur Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd.

Excerpt

.....b. radhakrishnan, j.wp(c).nos.21946/2008-k & 21982/2008-p dated this the 22nd day of july, 2008.judgmentheard the learned senior government pleader for respondents 2 to 4. notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving its right to move this court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.the petitioners in these writ petitions had different transactions with the first respondent bank. it appears that the joint registrar had concluded that there were over payments from the petitioners in excess of what they could have been compelled to pay on the basis of the circular issued by the registrar touching such transactions. in spite of such orders of the joint registrar, the first respondent bank has not made refund etc. wp(c)21942 & 21982/2008 -: 2 :-or obey the command of the joint registrar. these are matters which the joint registrar can consider and ensure obedience of his orders particularly when disobedience of the orders issued by the statutory authorities would tantamount to a situation which may require the statutory authorities to look into the functioning of the committee of the bank. under such circumstances, the joint registrar the second respondent is directed to issue such further orders as are necessary to ensure that the decisions of the second respondent as are referred to in these writ petitions are taken to their logical end appropriately. the petitioners are directed to place copies of these writ petitions and copies of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance as directed above.thottathil b. radhakrishnan, judge. sha/230708

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21946 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------

1. JOHNY, S/O.VAREETH, CHERADAYIL HOUSE P.O

2. LEELA JOHNY, W/O. JOHNY, CHERADAYIL HOUSE P.O BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------

1. PUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PUTHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR.

3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR.

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).21982 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

WP(C).Nos.21946/2008-K & 21982/2008-P Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving its right to move this Court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.

The petitioners in these writ petitions had different transactions with the first respondent bank. It appears that the Joint Registrar had concluded that there were over payments from the petitioners in excess of what they could have been compelled to pay on the basis of the circular issued by the Registrar touching such transactions. In spite of such orders of the Joint Registrar, the first respondent bank has not made refund etc. WP(C)21942 & 21982/2008 -: 2 :-

or obey the command of the Joint Registrar. These are matters which the Joint Registrar can consider and ensure obedience of his orders particularly when disobedience of the orders issued by the statutory authorities would tantamount to a situation which may require the statutory authorities to look into the functioning of the committee of the bank. Under such circumstances, the Joint Registrar the second respondent is directed to issue such further orders as are necessary to ensure that the decisions of the second respondent as are referred to in these writ petitions are taken to their logical end appropriately. The petitioners are directed to place copies of these writ petitions and copies of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance as directed above.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/230708

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2026 Same Parties Johny and Another vs Puthur Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.