Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAJU BHASKARAN, S/O.KELAN BHASKARAN versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., THOPPIPALA BRANCH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LAJU BHASKARAN, S/O.KELAN BHASKARAN v. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., THOPPIPALA BRANCH - WP(C) No. 18338 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 13129 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18338 of 2007(G)

1. LAJU BHASKARAN, S/O.KELAN BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., THOPPIPALA BRANCH
... Respondent

2. N.M.ABRAHAM, S/O.MATHEW, NJARACKAL (H),

3. PHILOMINA OUSEPH, PUTTANPURAKAL (H),

For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVASSIA

For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 18338 OF 2007 G

Dated this the 16th July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Kattappana in E.P.38/03 in O.S.161/99. The decree holder has obtained a decree against all the respondents of which the present writ petitioner is the principal debtor. The court below found that he was a driver of the Co- operative Bank having a daily income of Rs.200/- and that he has got 2 acres of non-patta land out of which he was deriving an income of Rs.25,000/- per annum. The decree holder had let in evidence and against the same the principal judgment debtor also tendered evidence. P.W.2 is examined to prove that the writ petitioner was working as a temporary driver and had deposed that he was in their service from 1.5.2003 to 30.4.2004. The court below found that since he is a driver having a heavy licence his version that he is not having any means cannot be accepted and therefore proceed to order warrant. I am afraid that such an approach may not be correct to detain a person in civil prison. The court has to satisfy its conscience that he has means to pay and he is deliberately avoiding payment. It is also submitted that there is a likelihood of settling the matter as well. So, I feel the only course WPC 18338/07 2 that can be adopted is to set aside the order and permit the decree holder as well as the respondent to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and in the meanwhile to attempt to settle the matter for a reasonable amount so that the claim of the parties can be settled. Respondents 2 and 3 can also persuade the principal debtor to wipe off the liability so that unnecessary hardship can be avoided. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 7.8.2007. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.