Salamath Shereef vs Kerala Financial Corporation (Kfc) on 12 December, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Salamath Shereef vs Kerala Financial Corporation (Kfc) on 12 December, 2019

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA,
                           1941

                  WP(C).No.33942 OF 2019(P)


PETITIONER:

              SALAMATH SHEREEF,
              AGED 50 YEARS,
              W/O LATE MOHAMMED SHEREEF, AURA HOUSE,
              EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O.,       KOLLAM
              DSITRICT -691 511.

              BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

     1        KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION (KFC),
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

     2        THE CHEIF MANAGER,
              KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION (KFC),
              VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

              R2 BY SRI.BASANT BALAJI, SC, KERALA FINANCIAL
              CORPORATION

  THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No. 33942 of 2019               2

                        W.P. (C) No.33942 of 2019
                 -----------------------------------------------
                               JUDGMENT

The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up today, was for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation addressed by the petitioner to the second respondent. The said representation is one preferred by the petitioner offering to purchase a property which was earlier purchased by the husband of the petitioner in a sale conducted by the first respondent and which was later set at naught by this Court so as to enable the defaulter to liquidate the liability. It is seen that the defaulter has not liquidated the liability and the petitioner could not purchase the property when the same was offered to her at that point of time in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that thereupon, though the first respondent put the property for sale, there was nobody to purchase the same. It is in the said background that the petitioner made Ext.P3 offer.

Having regard to the fact that the property is one W.P. (C) No. 33942 of 2019 3 which was earlier purchased by the husband of the petitioner and one which was offered to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 judgment, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 representation within one month, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB W.P. (C) No. 33942 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-07- 2018 IN W.A. NO. 685/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-06- 2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-11-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE YKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court