Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. Anil Kumar

Kerala HC11 Jan 2011FAO/292/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against an order granting interim attachment of a bus. Instead of immobilizing the asset, the Court directed the defendant to continue running the service as receiver, submit monthly status reports, and refrain from encumbering the bus, while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

Attainment of suit; bus to remain operational under defendant-receiver with monthly reporting; trial expedited within three months.

Vinod Kumar Vs Anil Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932

¶5

FAO.No. 292 OF 2010()

¶6

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2010 IN IA.1865/2010 IN OS.318/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶9

¶10

VINOD KUMAR, AGED 30, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, ALOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHEKAD DESOM-VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶12

SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶13

RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT

¶14

¶15

ANIL KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN, KOORIKKAL HOUSE, THIRUMUKULM DESOM, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK-680012.

¶16

ADV. SRI.M.N.MANOJ SRI.V.C.VALSAN

¶17

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.N. KRISHNAN &

¶19

P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 292 OF 2010

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

M.N. Krishnan, J.

¶24

This appeal is preferred against the order in I.A.1865 of 2010 in O.S. 318 OF 2010. The plaintiff has filed a suit for realisation of amount and has moved this application for attachment of a bus for the purpose of securing a security in the event of a decree being passed in his favour. There is disputes between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to the other aspects of the agreement. The plaintiff is apprehensive that the only property available with the defendant namely, the bus may be alienated or encumbered which will result in injustice to him if ultimately he succeeds in getting a decree. There is no point in attaching the bus or making it lying idle in the premises of the Court as it will result in complete ruin of the bus, without advantage to any parties. The defendant is running a bus service and therefore, it is only preferable that he is permitted to continue the bus service and the only safe guards to be incorporated are (i) the defendant is directed not to encumber further or transfer the bus in favour of any person

¶25

FAO 292/2010 2

¶26

till the disposal of the suit, (ii) the defendant himself can function as a receiver for the bus and submit accounts of the bus service once in three months before the Court, (iii) he shall file the status report regarding the running of the bus once in a month before the Court and lastly, there is a direction given to the trial court to expedite the trial and see that the whole suit is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

F.A.O. is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE)

¶29

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶30

¶31

knc/-

Vinod Kumar v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Anil Kumar

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

Joseph Syriac Vs Syrus Christudas

P.P.Noushad Vs Patheri Hamza

E.Subramanian Iyer Vs Laiju Jose

Shahul Hameed Vs Kadalai Hussain

Vinod Joseph Vs Alice