Kerala High Court
WP(C)/30237/2012 of DR.SHIJU S.V. Vs THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 30237 of 2012 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- DR.SHIJU S.V., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN,T.C.21/1534(3),ANASWARA,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 30237 of 2012 (D)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DR.SHIJU S.V., AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.SOMAN,T.C.21/1534(3),ANASWARA, NEDUMGADU,KARAMANA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, KANJIRAMKULAM BRANCH,KANJIRAMKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695524, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.2. STANLY.P.V,AGED 35 YRS, S/O.VEDASIVAMANI,PAZHAVILA VEEDU,THIRUPURAM, POOVAR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.3. SHIMI.S.V,, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.STANLY.P.V,...DO... ..DO... R1 BY ADVS. SRI.LAL GEORGE SRI.JOHNSON T.JOHN, SC, KSFE LTD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15/11/2012 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT VETERINARY OFFICER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 30237 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent.
2. Petitioner says that he offered himself as a surety torespondents 2 and 3, who had subscribed two chitties from the 1[st]respondent. According to the 1[st] respondent, as at present,`87,613/- is due from them. Default was committed by thesubscribers. Therefore, proceedings have been initiated againstthe petitioner for recovery of the dues. It is thereupon this writpetition has been filed mainly complaining that the 1[st] respondenthas not proceeded against the principal debtors and that whenthe petitioner offered himself as a surety and issued a salarycertificate, he was working in the Kerala Live Stock DevelopmentBoard. It is stated that subsequently he resigned from the Boardand is now working as Veterinary Surgeon in the AnimalHusbandry Department. Therefore, petitioner submits thatrecovery proceedings cannot be continued against him.
3. Admittedly, petitioner is a surety to respondents 2 and
3. Amounts are due from them to the 1[st] respondent. If that beso, as a creditor, the 1[st] respondent is entitled to proceed againstall the defaulters or any one of them and this choice of the 1[st]respondent is legally well protected. Therefore, the contention ofthe petitioner that he is being proceeded against despite theavailability of the principal debtors has no force. The fact that thepetitioner changed the employer subsequent to offering himselfas a surety is also of no consequence so long as the 1[st]respondent is entitled to proceed against him. In suchcircumstances, I do not find any substance in the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE