SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 152

PARIPOORNAN, G.VISWANATHA.IYER
DAVID – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. In these two O. Ps. common questions arise for consideration. They were heard together. O.P. 4641 of 1986: The petitioner obtained a loan from the Ist respondent, the Kerala Financial Corporation (in short, Corporation). An agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the Corporation. It is Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, the Corporation did not act according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The performance of certain conditions by the petitioner became impossible. The petitioner was earnest in complying with the terms of the agreement and for completing the industrial concern, for which the loan was obtained. Though the Corporation did not adhere to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the Corporation. He requested for enhancement of the loan amount. He also requested for immediate disbursement of the loan amount as per Ext. P1. The full amount was not disbursed at any time While so, by Ext. P5 dated 2-4-1982, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that further disbursement of the amount will be made only after making firm arrangement for procurement of plant and machinery. The petitioner was compell




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top