Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIDHYADHARAN .T. HEAD CLERK versus MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIDHYADHARAN .T. HEAD CLERK v. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD. - WP(C) No. 8484 of 2004(I) [2007] RD-KL 8967 (29 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8484 of 2004(I)

1. VIDHYADHARAN .T. HEAD CLERK,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent

2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT VANITHA ITI,

For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU

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.8484 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 29th May, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P3 order of attachment of salary issued by the Munsiff's Court, Kollam is under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution initiated by the judgment-debtor.

2. Heard Mr.B.Suresh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.R.D.Prabhu, counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. Mr.Suresh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner submits that the net salary which is being drawn by the petitioner is only Rs.1304/- and more than 80% of that salary is now ordered to be attached.

4. Mr.S.R.D.Prabhu, counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the attachable portion of the salary in terms of Section 60 of the C.P.C. will be around Rs.2300/- going by Ext.P4 salary certificate produced by the petitioner himself.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am inclined to agree with Mr.S.R.D.Prabhu who submits that what is now ordered to be attached is even less than the legally attachable portion. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that the petitioner need not be subjected to the embarrassment of the attachment over his salary. The petitioner will pay the amount W.P.C.No.8484/04 - 2 - ordered to be attached every month by cash. Under these circumstances, even as I hold that there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned order in this proceedings, I direct the court below to keep the impugned order in abeyance on condition that the petitioner will pay every month commencing from 15.6.2007 at the rate of Rs.1300/-. In the event of any default, the petitioner will forfeit the benefit of this judgment and the impugned order will become operative. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


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.