Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR versus RAMANI, R.S. NIVAS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR v. RAMANI, R.S. NIVAS - WP(C) No. 11327 of 2004(W) [2007] RD-KL 8966 (29 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11327 of 2004(W)

1. V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RAMANI, R.S. NIVAS,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.GOPU

For Respondent :SRI.G.SUDHEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/05/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C) No.11327 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 29TH MAY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Ext.P1 order passed by the execution court directing arrest and detention of the petitioner on the basis that he has not paid the decree-debt in spite of sufficient means is under challenge in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr.V.R.Gopu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding of the court below that the petitioner is liable to be arrested is not based on any legal evidence. He submitted that it was conceded before the court below that the only source of income for the petitioner is the salary that he draws from the Museum Department and Ext.P2 certificate was produced before the court below which did not place any reliance on Ext.P2.

2. Mr.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the court below was perfectly justified in ignoring Ext.P2 which does not even mention the precise amount which is received by the petitioner every month.

3. In this Court Ext.P3 salary certificate has been produced by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is dated 4.11.2003 and the same shows that the emoluments totally drawn by the petitioner as on that date is WP(C)N0.11327/04 Rs.4293/-. Obviously the amount has escalated by now to at least Rs.6000/-. The attachable portion of the petitioner's salary in terms of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be around Rs.1500/- to Rs.1750/-. It is trite that the unattachable portion of the salary of a person cannot be reckoned as means for the purpose of ordering arrest under Section 51 of the Code.

4. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition itself issuing the following directions:- Ext.P1 will be kept in abeyance by the court below on condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent, on the 15th of every month, at the rate of Rs.1500/- without fail. In the event of any default by the petitioner in making payments as above, Ext.P1 shall become operative and the learned Munsiff will ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in accordance with law. No costs.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.11327/04


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.