Disposed

Sasidharan v. Divisional Manager LIC

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012OP(C)/3126/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the impugned order recalling a warrant of arrest. Instead of the prior condition requiring payment of Rs. 25,000 on specific dates, the Court directed monthly installments of Rs. 20,000 starting from December 1, 2012, to wipe off the decree debt. In case of default, the arrest warrant revives. Both parties were directed to file calculation statements to verify the actual ba

What did the court decide?

The impugned order recalling the warrant is modified. Petitioner must pay Rs. 20,000 monthly from 01.12.2012 to clear the debt. Default will revive the arrest warrant.

Sasidharan Vs Divisional Manager LIC — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 3126 of 2012 (O)

¶6

EP.NO.515/2004 IN OS.194/1996 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SASIDHARAN KOLATHAI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, ADVOCATE "KAILAS" KOTTOOLI AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SHERIFF

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC KOZHIKODE DIVISION, LIC OF INDIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C) NO. 3126/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA 683/2012 IN WP 515/2004

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶21

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶22

O.P.(C) No. 3126 of 2012

¶23

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2012

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The plea of no means raised by the

¶26

petitioner/judgment debtor was turned down by the execution court and an order of arrest and detention in civil prison passed as early as on 19.10.2010. An attempt to review the same also failed and the petitioner who was making intermittent payments in small denominations applied for recalling the warrant. The court below has by the order impugned allowed the application to recall the warrant on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.25,000/- on each of the posting dates till the decree debt is wiped off.

¶27

The respondent/decree holder contends that the balance due under the decree comes to Rs. 3,46,732.95 whereas the petitioner contends that only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be still due. I direct both the parties to file calculation statements in the court below so that the balance amount due under the decree can be deciphered with exactitude. The impugned order is modified by directing the

¶28

¶29

OP(C) No. 3126/2012

¶30

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month till the decree debt is completely wiped off. The payment has to start with effect from 01.12.2012 and the court below shall arrive at the balance amount due within that time.

¶31

The warrant of arrest earlier issued will revive in case

¶32

the petitioner omits to comply with the condition in time. The respondent is then at liberty to insist for the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison.

¶33

No further directions are called for and the Original Petition is disposed of.

¶34

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶35

ncd

Sasidharan v. Divisional Manager LIC

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan v. Divisional Manager LIC

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

Retnamma Vs M/S.Mannam Sugar Mills Ltd.

Kanakavel Vs Pazhaniammal

State of Kerala Vs Mariamma

P.Thamban Nair Vs Meethale Veettil Madhavi

Vellayamattom Bhagavathy Vs M/S. Karikode Rubber Ltd.

Damodharan Nair Vs Banarji