Remanded

M.a.Majeeth v. a.K.Jayadev Singh

Kerala HC9 Oct 2012CRP/589/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court heard a Civil Revision Petition regarding the dismissal of an execution petition. The court held the lower court was correct in upholding the respondent's plea of no means but remanded the matter for substantive review of the debtors' financial capacity, recalling the parties to substantiate contentions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; execution petition remanded to lower court for de novo decision on means with parties required to appear.

M.a.Majeeth Vs a.K.Jayadev Singh — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/17TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 589 of 2010 ( )

¶6

E.P. NO. 389/2003 IN OS.1596/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER :

¶8

M.A.MAJEETH, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK ROUTHER, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8/12, P.N.R.LAYOUT, TRICHY ROAD COIMBATORE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)

¶11

RESPONDEN/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

¶12

A.K.JAYADEV SINGH, S/O. LATE ALAKKAL KRISHNAN, ALAKKAL HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O. CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶18

C.R.P.No.589 of 2010

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The plea of 'no means' raised by the respondent/judgment debtor has been upheld by the court below and the execution petition dismissed. The petitioner/decree holder had produced the certified copy of the order in O.P No.173/2002 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur. The same reflected that the respondent is the Managing Director of Sree Kurumba Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Thriprayar, Nattika , Chavakkad Taluk.

¶22

The respondent has not even mounted the box to controvert the evidence of the petitioner. The respondent has not produced the account books of Sree Kurumba Financiers Private Ltd. from his custody. The respondent owes a duty to prove his nexus with Sree Kurumba Financiers Pvt. Ltd. . The petitioner could have also summoned relevant records from either the Registrar of Companies or the Income Tax Department.

¶23

C.R.P.No.589 of 2010 2

¶24

True this Court by judgment in W.P.C No.19885/2006 remitted the matter to the execution court to decide the 'means' of the respondent denovo. But neither the petitioner nor the respondent utilized the opportunity to the fullest extent. The amount due under the decree is substantial and hence I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to both the sides to substantiate their contentions.

¶25

I set aside the impugned order and remit E.P No.389/2003 in O.S No.1596/1994 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Chavakad. The parties shall appear in the execution court at 1-11-2012.

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of . No costs.

¶27

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶28

smm

¶29

C.R.P.No.589 of 2010 3

¶30

C.R.P.No.589 of 2010 4

M.a.Majeeth v. a.K.Jayadev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Majeeth v. a.K.Jayadev Singh

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.Thamban Nair Vs Meethale Veettil Madhavi

Vellayamattom Bhagavathy Vs M/S. Karikode Rubber Ltd.

Damodharan Nair Vs Banarji

M.K. Rajesh Vs Lohithakshan

Chellama Vs Bhanumathi and 7 Others

Mohandas Vs Sudhakara Panicker