Disposed

Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016OP(C)/1732/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that disputes regarding the amount payable under an Adalath award pending in execution proceedings must be resolved by the execution court, not the High Court under Article 227. The execution court is directed to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The High Court is not empowered to determine the dispute regarding the payable amount; the execution court is directed to expedite proceedings to ascertain the balance.

Venugopal Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1732 of 2016 (O)

¶6

LAR NO. 83/1994 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

VENUGOPAL, AGED:52 YEARS, S/O LEKSHMANAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'SREEVALSAM', AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CHERTHALA-688524

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

OP(C).No. 1732 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT:1: COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 31/1/16 IN E.P.52/02 IN LAR 83/94 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶19

EXHIBIT:2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED IN LAR 83/94 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

======================== O.P.(C) No.1732 of 2016

¶26

==========================

¶27

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this Court for directing the respondent to deposit the amount due in L.A.R No.83 of 1994 of Sub Court, Cherthala under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R No.83 of 1994 which was disposed of long ago

¶31

and during the pendency of the execution proceedings, there was an Adalath conducted in which the matter was also referred. In the Adalath Ext.P1 award was passed as follows:

¶32

“Both parties present. Matter settled for

¶33

Rs.73,000/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand only). The amount shall be paid by JD on or before 30.04.2016. In case of default of payment, EP shall stand revived and Decree Holder is entitled for all the benefits claimed in

¶34

the EP.”

¶35

O.P.(C) No.1732/ 2016

¶36

¶37

In the meanwhile, some of the claimants died and

¶38

legal representatives brought on record which is evident from Ext.P2 proceedings of the court below. The respondent has not paid the amount so far. Petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶39

i) To direct the respondent to disburse the amount pursuant to LAR 83/1994 of Sub Court, Cherthala in tune with Ext.P1 award passed by Taluk Legal Services Committee, Cherthala to the petitioner.

¶40

ii) To direct the respondent to pay cost.

¶41

iii) To pass any other appropriate order or direction to meet the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

¶42

Considering the nature of reliefs claimed, this Court directed the respondent to ascertain the time required for depositing the amount and the Government Pleader submitted that they have already deposited the amount due as per Ext.P1 award. When it was pointed out that that will not cover the

¶43

O.P.(C) No.1732/ 2016

¶44

¶45

amount as the amount was not deposited within time, petitioners are entitled to revival of the execution petition and seek for the amount claimed, the Government Pleader submitted that the balance amount after deducting income tax will come to only Rs.2413.13. But this amount was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶46

Heard Sri.V.L.Shenoy, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Gopinathan, senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶47

Since there is dispute regarding the amount payable under the award, especially when the execution petition is pending, it is for the execution court to consider those objections and to ascertain what is the balance amount payable as per the award. That cannot be done by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the respondent, they have deposited the amount as per the award. But according to the petitioner, that will not cover the amount entitled as per execution as the amount was not paid within the time fixed by the Adalath in Ext.P1 award. So, all these disputes can be resolved only by the execution court. So, this Court feels that since there is

¶48

O.P.(C) No.1732/ 2016

¶49

¶50

dispute regarding the amount payable and it has to be resolved by the execution court, no direction can be given by this Court to the respondent to deposit the amount as claimed by the petitioner in this petition.

¶51

The execution court is directed to expedite the execution proceedings in E.P No.52 of 2002 in L.A.R No.83 of 1994 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

With the above direction and observation this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the court below immediately.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

K.RAMAKRISHNAN , JUDGE

¶55

vdv/26/09/16

Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal v. State of Kerala

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

T.K.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Jawahar Vs Ramananda Shenoy

Pankajakshy Vs Sukumaran

A.D.Narayanan Namboothiri Vs the Compettent Authority

Mathew C. Thomas Vs Mathew C. Joseph