Disposed

Vijayakumar & Another v. J.Sathyadas & Others

Kerala HC15 Jan 2008WP(C)/1178/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning salary attachment, the Kerala High Court directed the Special Deputy Tahsildar to assess the principal debtor's properties. The court cautioned that petitioners' liability as sureties was not exonerated and recovery actions must proceed based on an inquiry into the debtor's assets.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for Branch Manager to issue notice and for Special Deputy Tahsildar to assess principal debtor's properties regarding debt recovery.

Vijayakumar & Another Vs J.Sathyadas & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1178 of 2008(M) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

¶8

K.VIJAYAKUMAR, STATION MASTER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POOVAR DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

P.VIJAYAKUMAR, CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POOVAR DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

J.SATHYADAS, INSPECTOR (RETIRED), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POOVAR DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT DHANYA, LURDUPURAM, KANJIRAMKULAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AKSHAYA SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R1, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.GIRI,J.

¶20

W.P ( C) No.1178 of 2008

¶21

Dated this the 15^th January, 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioners, who are employees of the K.S.F.E, stood as sureties for a loan availed by the 1^st respondent who was a colleague till 31.12.2007 when he retired from service. The 1^st respondent had subscribed to a chit run by the Financial Enterprises and on prizing the chit, the amount was received by the 1st respondent. This was, inter alia, on the strength of guarantee offered by the petitioners. Apparently, repayment of the loan was defaulted by the 1^st respondent. Steps were taken by the 4^th respondent to attach the salary drawn by the petitioners. Petitioners submit that recovery of amount of Rs.12,068/- and Rs.11,961/- was effected from the salaries of the petitioners. Petitioners submit that the 1st respondent is a person of means. Therefore, the 4^th respondent should proceed against the properties of the 1^st respondent, it is contended.

¶24

I have heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 4^th respondent. In the nature of

¶25

W.P ( C) No.1178 of 2008

¶26

¶27

the directions proposed to be issued, I do not think it is necessary to issue a notice to the 1^st respondent. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the following terms:

¶28

i) The Branch Manager of the K.S.F.E, Vizhinjam shall issue a notice to the petitioners and the 1^st respondent asking them to appear before him on a particular day. The Branch Manager shall then after hearing the principal debtor and sureties draw up a proceedings indicating the mode of repayment.

¶29

ii) The 4^th respondent shall specifically consider whether there are properties available with the principal debtor to satisfy the debt. If there is any factor which inhibits the Financial Enterprises from proceeding against the properties of the principal debtor or against him, that may be indicated in the proceedings to be drawn up by the 4^th respondent.

¶30

iii) It is made clear that this direction will not be treated as one resulting in the exoneration of liability of the petitioners and is intended only to facilitate the recovery of amount due from the principal debtor.

¶31

W.P ( C) No.1178 of 2008

¶32

¶33

iv) Further proceedings by way of attachment of the salary of petitioners shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the K.S.F.E in the manner aforementioned.

¶34

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶35

¶36

W.P ( C) No.1178 of 2008

¶37

¶38

K.THANKAPPAN,J

¶39

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

¶40

ORDER

¶41

25^th May, 2007

Vijayakumar & Another v. J.Sathyadas & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar & Another v. J.Sathyadas & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N.Mohanadasan Vs Dr.Shylaja

M.a.Mohammed Ali Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Maram Veettil Sobha Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Devakumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Sunil Kumar.K.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

Sini Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Others