Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.P. SWAMINATHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.P. SWAMINATHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE - WP(C) No. 19828 of 2005(I) [2007] RD-KL 9433 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19828 of 2005(I)

1. A.P. SWAMINATHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN
... Petitioner

2. PHILOMINA FRANCIS, W/O. SWAMINATHAN,

Vs

1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.S.EASWARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.19828 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 5th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The judgment-debtors in a proceeding for execution initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,837.60 due to the respondent, the L.I.C. of India under a money decree are the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The impugned order is Ext.P1 by which the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the attachability and saleability of the properties belonging to the petitioners are repelled. I find that in Ext.P1 itself the court below has noticed that O.P.No.14214/02 was filed by the very same petitioners earlier and the same was disposed of directing the petitioners to deposit the entire balance amount within 5 months failing which execution proceedings will revive. At the outset I must say that there is no warrant for correcting Ext.P1 in the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondent the stay which was initially granted by this court subject to the condition that the petitioners pay Rs.25,000/- towards the decree debt and was extended till 14.12.2005, has not been extended so far. Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to inform whether the amount ordered to be paid within W.P.C.No.19828/05 - 2 - one month from 1.7.2005 has been paid. But according to me the above condition was not complied with by the petitioners since it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that recently the petitioners issued cheque for an amount of Rs.75000/- to the respondent and that cheque bounced. I find that the petitioner is not eligible for the reliefs sought for. However on considerations of indulgence, the impugned order will be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. It is open to the petitioners to settle the dispute with the respondent-Corporation in the meanwhile. If the issue is not settled within the aforesaid period of six weeks, the execution court will be justified in taking coercive steps against the petitioners for compelling recovery. 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.