Partly allowed

Chandrakumari v. Sandeep

Kerala HC18 Sept 2012OP(C)/962/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the lower court's order attaching a portion of the petitioner's salary for executing a money decree. While the court determined the legally attachable amount based on statutory limits, it allowed the respondents' prayer to limit attachment to Rs.4,000/month for 24 months contingent on the petitioner's payment. The original petition was disposed of with moderation ordered.

What did the court decide?

Attachment of salary limited to Rs.4,000 per month for 24 months if the petitioner fails to make voluntary payments; full attachment allowed thereafter if debt unsatisfied.

Chandrakumari Vs Sandeep — 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 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/27TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 962 of 2012 (O)

¶6

.NO./ IN OS.107/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶8

CHANDRAKUMARI, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.SURESH KUMAR, ARUN NIVAS, NILAMEL P.O. NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:

¶11

SANDEEP

¶12

S/O.NJANASEELAN, QUARTERS NO.38/439, RAJEEV NAGAR MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA P.O., THYCAUD VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶13

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN BY ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C).No. 962 of 2012 (O

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.75/2010 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE E.A. 96/11 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA

¶20

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN E.A. 96/11

¶21

P4 COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) , KSFE LTD, TRIVANDRUM DATED 17-11-2011

¶22

P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

O.P(C) No. 962 of 2012

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Only salary to the extent of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) and 2/3^rd of the remainder shall not be liable for attachment in execution of a decree for money. The net salary of the petitioner/judgment debtor is Rs.17,971/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and seventy one only) as per Ext.P2 . Therefore the attachable portion of the salary of the petitioner comes to Rs.5,657/- (Rupees five thousand six hundred and fifty seven only) per month. The court below has not therefore erred in directing Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be attached from the salary of the petitioner every month when the decree debt exceeds Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as on today.

¶33

The decree holder however submits that he is agreeable for limiting the attachment from the salary of the judgment debtor to Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) per month in execution of the decree in question. It is open to the petitioner to

¶34

O.P(C) No. 962 of 2012 2

¶35

pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) every month to the respondent in order to avert attachment of salary before the end of every month. The court below shall ascertain the exact amount due under the decree after giving credit to the payments hitherto made by the petitioner. The salary to the extent of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) per month shall be attached for a total period of 24 months in the event of the petitioner failing to pay Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) directly to the decree holder before the end of every month. The judgment holder is at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for realisation of the balance amount if the decree debt is not satisfied by attachment for a continuous period of 24 months.

¶36

The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above reservation. The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of.

¶37

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶38

smm

¶39

O.P(C) No. 962 of 2012 3

¶40

O.P(C) No. 962 of 2012 4

Chandrakumari v. Sandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakumari v. Sandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gafoor Vs v.a.Thomas

George.M.L. Vs K.H.Shoukathali

Sujana.P. Vs Ramani.K.E.

Antony A.V Vs Patil Ajith Bagawat Rao

Andippatt Purushothaman Vs T.Dasan

Subramonian Vs Varghese