Disposed

Anilkumar R v. Subhash Chandran

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016OP(C)/2227/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original civil petition, the High Court dismissed the plea to challenge the executability of an award extinguished by a subsequent agreement. The court declined to interfere with the lower court's order but granted liberty to move the execution court directly for similar objections regarding the award.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file in execution court regarding executability of award.

Anilkumar R Vs Subhash Chandran — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2227 of 2016 (O)

¶6

EP 53/2016 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

ANILKUMAR R., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SRUTHI, KIZHUVILAM P.O., VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

SUBHASH CHANDRAN, S/O.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SREELEKSHMI, KIZHUVILAM P.O., VALIYAKUNNU,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 695 104

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

msv/

¶14

OP(C).No. 2227 of 2016 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 25/2/2016 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN PLC NO.1045/2015 DATED 8/8/2015 OF THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF E.A NO.110/2016 IN E.P NO.53/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/6/2016 IN E.A. NO.110/2016 IN E.P NO.53/2016 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶21

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF E.P NO.53/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶22

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.A NO. 110/2016 IN E.P NO.53/2016 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/8/2016 IN E.A NO.110/2016 IN E.P NO.53/2016 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶30

O.P.(C).No.2227 of 2016

¶31

....................................................... Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

When the petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to challenge the executability of Ext.P2 award itself as it is extinguished by Ext.P1 agreement entered into between the parties subsequent to the award. It appears that, that contention was taken when the objection to attachment application was filed. The court below had reduced the attachment amount in tune with the objection raised as per Ext.P1 agreement. As such this court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below, but liberty can be given to the petitioner to move the execution court itself raising objection regarding the executability of Ext.P2 award, which according to him, has been extinguished by executing Ext.P1 agreement.

¶34

With the above liberty, this petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶37

Anilkumar R v. Subhash Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar R v. Subhash Chandran

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

Kusalakumari Vs Viswambharan

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Gheevarghese Kuruvila Vs Sunnykutty

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal Vs Nadarajan Nair

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs Lilly

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram Vs Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom