Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.GODWIN GILLS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH versus SYNDICATE BANK LTD., REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.GODWIN GILLS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH v. SYNDICATE BANK LTD., REP. BY - CRP No. 272 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2296 (1 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 272 of 2006()

1. J.GODWIN GILLS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SYNDICATE BANK LTD., REP. BY
... Respondent

2. K.R.BINDU SAGAR, S/O.K.C.RAVINDRAN,

3. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ASIF

For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :01/12/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

C.R.P.NO.272 OF 2006 (A)

Dated this the 1 st day of December, 2006.

ORDER

Petitioner is second judgment debtor, first respondent is decree holder. E.P.247/05 was filed for realisation of the amount due jointly from three judgment debtors. The first judgment debtor is principal judgment debtor. The other judgment debtors are the sureties. As per order dated 22.4.06 executing court directed attachment of salary of petitioner at the rate of Rs.893/- per month. This revision petition is filed challenging that order contending that as per Ext.P1 objection filed by first judgment debtor, he had undertaken to pay the decree debt in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and in such circumstances, the salary of petitioner should not have been attached by the executing court.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent/ decree holder were heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that decree holder is only interested in realisation of the decree debt and if first respondent is paying the amount as stated in Ext.P1 objection, decree holder will not insist for attachment of the salary of the petitioner, but if first C.R.P.NO.272 OF 2006 (A) 2 judgment debtor is not paying the amount decree holder is entitled to proceed against petitioner including attachment of his salary. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that if first judgment debtor is prepared to pay the amount, decree holder will not insist for attachment of the salary of petitioner. In such circumstances, the order of attachment of salary is set aside.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that an opportunity has to be granted to first judgment debtor to pay all the decree debt as stated in Ext.P1 objection. If the first judgment debtor fails to pay the amount as undertaken in the objection, namely Rs.3,000/- per month, executing court is competent to proceed against petitioner also. At that stage, executing court may consider the offer of petitioner to pay more than the amount attached by the executing court. Executing court is directed to pass appropriate orders in this petition. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.