Kerala Court January 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gopalaswamy Kounder and Etc. Vs. Ramaswamy Kounder and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker138; 2006(2)KLT595
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioner in the two Civil Revision Petitions is a minor by name Muthuraj represented by his next friend Gopalaswami Rounder and the common petitioner in the two writ petitions is the said Gopalaswami Rounder who sought permission to act as the next friend of the minor, O.S. Nos. 630/97 and 172/98 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Chittur were two money suits instituted by respondents 1 to 5 herein against one Nataraja Rounder, who was the paternal grandfather of the said minor, Muthuraj. The said suits were for realisation of money and were decreed against the said Nataraja Rounder. In execution of the decrees, six items of immovable properties having an extent of about nine acres belonging to the said Nataraja Rounder were sold in Court auction and purchased by the 6th respondent herein namely E.R. Ajoy who is a stranger. W.P. (C) 34847/2005 is filed challenging Ext. P8 order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A. 593/05 in E.P. 376/05 in O.S. 630/97 whereunder...
Usman Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT449
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner, a personal guarantor for the loan availed by Cedicom (India) Private Ltd., hereinafter called the 'company' which is not made party in this Writ Petition, from the first respondent is challenging Exts. P1 and P2 recovery proceedings issued against him under the RR Act for recovery of arrears to the tune of Rs. 60 lakhs and odd. Petitioner is not denying the liability of the company and the petitioner's liability as personal guarantor. However, recover, proceedings initiated under the RR Act are seriously contested on the ground of limitation and on the ground that after the commencement of Recovery of Debts (due to Banks and Financial Institutions) Act hereinafter called the 'DRT Act', no recovery proceedings for recovery of debt due to a financial institution can be initiated except by resorting to the provisions of the DRT Act. Another objection raised is that recovery proceedings initiated are not in accordance with mandatory provisions of t...
Amritha Cyber Park (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas446(Ker); 2006(2)KLT394
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner is challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated under Section 69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, hereinafter called the 'RR Act' for recovery of arrears of loan availed by the petitioner from the first respondent-Corporation. The arrears sought to be recovered is above Rs. 1.53 crores. Petitioner is not disputing the loan transaction which led to the liability and recovery and the only contention raised is that the amount cannot be recovered by resort to the provisions of the RR Act. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Government of Kerala has issued notification SRO 851/79, under Section 71 of the RR Act permitting Kerala Financial Corporation to recover arrears due to it by resorting to the RR Act. According to standing counsel, for the last several years, recoveries have been made under the RR Act in the case of hundreds of defaulters and the contention of the kind raised by the petitioner is n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›