Dismissed

Major P.G.Kutty (Retd) v. Panangatt Polimer Packings (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC23 Jul 2009FAO/120/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against an order refusing to lift the attachment of property belonging to the appellants in a realization of money suit. The first appellant died during the pendency of the appeal. The court found no fault in the impugned order, noting the second appellant can file a fresh petition to lift the attachment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order refusing to lift the attachment was left as it stood.

Major P.G.Kutty (Retd) Vs Panangatt Polimer Packings… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931

¶4

FAO.No. 120 of 2005()

¶5

--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2005 IN IA 1417/02 IN OS.260/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶6

APPELLANTS

¶7

¶8

MAJOR P.G.KUTTY (RETIRED), RESIDING AT LAKSHMI, THAMBURATTY, PARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPILLY, COCHIN.

¶9

MRS.VIJAYALAKSHMI KUTTY, W/O.P.G.KUTTY, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI, 35/2583, THAMBURATTY PARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPILLY, COCHIN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

PANANGATT POLIMER PACKINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BINANIPURAM, EDAYAR, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶13

N.NALINI, W/O.LATE C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶14

N.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE

¶15

C.UNNIKRISHNAN AND W/O.K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR LANE, THRISSUR.

¶16

N.SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R1 TO 4

¶18

SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R1 TO 4

¶19

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

¶21

-------------------------------------------------------FAO 120 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------------Dated 23^rd July 2009

¶22

Judgment

¶23

RAMAN, J.

¶24

This is an appeal against an order refusing to lift the attachment. The suit is one for realisation of money. The property belonging to the appellants was attached. It is contended that the liability, if any, of the second appellant will only be to the tune of Rs.46,000/- and therefore, the property belonging to the second appellant need not continue in attachment. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died. So, necessarily, the second appellant would be one of the legal heirs. If so, it is open to the appellants to move a fresh petition. It is also submitted that there is a talk of compromise. In the circumstances, we do not find any fault in the order now passed. However, this will not stand in the way of the continuing appellant moving a fresh application to lift the attachment and if the court is satisfied after hearing the parties that any item of property under attachment should be lifted, it may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶25

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

¶26

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶27

sta

¶28

FAO 120/05 2

¶29

FAO 120/05 3

Major P.G.Kutty (Retd) v. Panangatt Polimer Packings (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Major P.G.Kutty (Retd) v. Panangatt Polimer Packings (P) Ltd.

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

Ramachandran Vs B.Balakrishnan

Thattankandiyil Kunhammed Vs Narakkottu Kadarkutty

Parakandy Harsha Vs Dr. Rajan

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Examiner

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director of Local Fund

Suo-Motu Vs Secy.,Tdb.,Tvpm.& Local Fund Audit,Tvpm.