Disposed

K.P.Karthiyani v. Manager,North Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala HC6 Jun 2007WP(C)/2385/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order detaining the petitioner's son based on a decree. The court ruled that the lower court failed to conduct the mandatory enquiry under Rule 40 of Order XXI CPC regarding the sufficiency of means and willful neglect before ordering detention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowing further detention is dismissed, unless detention is based on a finding after a proper enquiry under Rule 40 of Order XXI.

K.P.Karthiyani Vs Manager,North Malabar Gramin Bank — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2007 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 2385 of 2004(H) ------------------------EP.139/2003 IN O.S.276/98 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR ....................

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

K.P.KARTHIYANI, M/O. K.P.SURESH, KOLLAMKUNNU PARAMBIL, CHANDAPPURA, P.O. KADANNAPPALLY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶11

THE MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, CHERUTHAZHAM BRANCH, P.O. PILATHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

K.P.RAGHUNATH, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KOLLANKUNNU PERAMBIL, CHANDAPPURA, P.O. KADANNAPPALLY.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶14

SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.2385/04

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S EXTS:

EXT.P1 – TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DT.13.1.04 OF MUNSIFF’S COURT, PAYYANNUR IN EP.139/03 IN O.S.276/98.

¶20

/true copy/

¶21

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.2385 OF 2004 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 6TH JUNE, 2007

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The issue involved in this case is between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent only. The 1^st respondent is already served with notice.

¶25

The mother of the 3^rd judgment-debtor who was ordered to be detained in civil prison in execution of a money decree obtained by the 1^st respondent-bank is the petitioner in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning Ext.P1 order of detention passed by the execution court. While admitting this Writ Petition, this Court directed immediate release of the petitioner’s son from the jail on condition that he pays a sum of Rs.10,000/-. I am informed that the above payment was made. In fact, it had been specifically ordered that if payment is not made, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

¶26

On reading through Ext.P1, I find that arrest was ordered against the son of the petitioner on the reason that he did not appear in response to the notice under Rule 37 of Order XXI C.P.C. It is clear that no enquiry as envisaged by Rule 40 of Order XXI was conducted by the court below before finding that the petitioner’s son wilfully neglected to pay the decree debt in spite of sufficient means. The

¶27

¶28

-2-

¶29

impugned order will show that the court below has acted upon the affidavit submitted on behalf of the bank and has proceeded to issue the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner’s son has not expressed any intention to be declared insolvent.

¶30

In view of the obvious position that no enquiry as envisaged by Rule 40 was conducted by the learned Munsiff, I dispose of the Writ Petition observing that the petitioner’s son will not be detained further in execution of the decree in question unless it be on the strength of a finding regarding the sufficiency of his means and the wilful nature of his negligence in the matter of payment on the basis of an enquiry under Rule 40 of Order XXI. No costs.

¶31

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

-3-

-4-

K.P.Karthiyani v. Manager,North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Karthiyani v. Manager,North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bright Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Recovery Officer

Somalatha Vs Shereef

Puthiya Parambath Kanangat Cheeru Amma Vs Kamakshi Amma

R.R.Cicily Mathew Vs Corporation of Kochi,Rep.by Secretary

S.Sundaresh Pai Vs Recovery Officer,Drt & Another

C.K. Raji Vs V.G. Appukuttan