Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMASUNDARN versus HMT LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOMASUNDARN v. HMT LTD. - WP(C) No. 17265 of 2006(E) [2007] RD-KL 2028 (25 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17265 of 2006(E)

1. SOMASUNDARN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. HMT LTD.,
... Respondent

2. M/S.PRAKASH STORES,

3. M.JAYAPRAKASH,

4. SREEKUMAR,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :25/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.17265 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is third judgment debtor in O.S.231/94, which is executed before Sub Court, Trichur in E.P.631/04. Executing Court as per order dated 22.6.06, directed arrest and detention of judgment debtors 1 to 4, holding that they have sufficient means but neglected to pay the decree debt. Only third judgment debtor challenged that order in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Though notice was served on respondents 1 to 3, respondents did not appear.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was impleaded only as legal heir of Kochunni Nair, second defendant in the suit and the properties of his father did not devolve on him and petitioner is therefore not liable to pay the decree debt and he has no means to pay the decree debt and second respondent firm has sufficient assets, which could be realised by first respondent decree holder and therefore the order is to be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner also submitted that petitioner could W.P.(c)12283/06 2 not adduce evidence as sufficient opportunity was not granted and i such circumstances, the order is to be quashed.

5. Ext.P2 application shows that petitioner had sought an adjournment before the executing Court on 17.3.06. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was that no adjournment was granted and therefore petitioner could not adduce evidence and petitioner may be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence. In the light of the submissions, the order of arrest passed as against petitioner is set aside. Executing Court is directed to consider afresh whether petitioner is liable to be arrested in execution of the decree in E.P.631/04, after affording an opportunity to him to adduce evidence.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)12283/06 3


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.