Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH P. KOCHUKUDY versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH P. KOCHUKUDY v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - CRP No. 21 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 703 (10 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 21 of 2007()

1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH P. KOCHUKUDY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.SANTHAMMA ISSAC

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :10/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

C.R.P.NO.21 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007

ORDER

Petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R.310/95 on the file of Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. As per decree dated 29.1.1999, enhanced compensation was awarded. In addition to the enhanced land value, petitioner was awarded solatium at 30% and benefit under Section 23 (1A) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and thereafter at 15% till realisation. State deposited the enhanced compensation as awarded by learned Sub Judge. Petitioner filed a cheque application. Learned Sub Judge holding that the amount claimed by petitioner includes interest and solatium as well as interest at 12% granted under Section 23(1A), directed the decree holder petitioner to file a memo recording full satisfaction. It was held that petitioner is entitled to only Rs.3,740/-. As the memo was not filed, it was dismissed as per order dated 30.10.06. These orders are challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard.

3. As pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, C.R.P.21/07 2 the decree provides for enhanced land value, 30% solatium, interest at 12% as provided under Section 23(1A) and interest at 9% for one year and for 15% thereafter.

4. Learned Sub Judge held that under the decree, petitioner is not entitled to interest on solatium or on the benefit granted under Section 23(1A) and disallowed the claim of petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the decree specifically provide interest on these amounts and so order is to be set aside. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as the order does not reveal the details, learned Sub Judge may be directed to pass appropriate order.

5. On hearing learned both learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Government pleader, it is clear that learned Sub Judge has not considered the cheque application in the proper perspective or the legal entitlement of petitioner in law. The orders dated 26.10.06 and 30.10.06 are set aside. Learned Sub Judge is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law in the cheque application No.583/06 expeditiously, after hearing the parties.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd C.R.P.21/07 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.