Partly allowed

Abdul Latheef v. Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016OP(C)/3513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a sale order in a money recovery execution, the High Court declined to set aside the order. Instead, it directed the petitioner to pay the balance due in four monthly installments and stayed the execution proceedings for four months, with liberty to resume upon default.

What did the court decide?

Director to deposit outstanding amount in four equal monthly installments; execution proceedings to be kept in abeyance for four months upon first payment.

Abdul Latheef Vs Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd. — 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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 3513 of 2013 (O)

¶6

E.P.NO.10/2009 IN ARB.REF.NO.142/2007 OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

¶8

ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.YUNUS KUNJU, THOTTATHIL BHAVAN, MUSAVARIKUNNE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER :

¶11

MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LTD., MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, KURIAN TOWER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 011.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

OP(C).No. 3513 of 2013 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19/01/2008 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO.142/2007.
EXT.P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN E.P NO.10/2009 IN ARB. REF. NO.142/2007 OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.
EXT.P3:	A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN E.P NO.10/2009 IN ARB. REF.NO.142/2007 OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.
EXT.P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2013 IN E.P NO.10/2009 IN ARB. REF NO.142/2007.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

¶25

============================== O.P.(C).No.3513 of 2013

¶26

============================== Dated this, the 01^st day of August, 2016.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the III Additional District Court, Kollam in E.P.No.10/2009 in Arb.Ref.No.142/2007, under Artilce 227 of Constitution of India.

¶29

2.The allegation in the petition was that, he availed a vehicle loan by taking a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- agreeing to pay the same in 60 installments in the year 2005. He committed default in payment of the amount. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were initiated as Arbitration Reference No.142/2007 and Ext.P1 award was passed on 19.01.2008. Thereafter, they filed Ext.P2 Execution Petition as E.P.No.10/2009, which is pending before the III Additional District Court, Kollam. He filed Ext.P3 objection stating that the arbitration award is not proper and legal as the decree holder was not represented by a proper authorised person in that proceedings. However, when the property was attached and brought for sale, as

¶30

O.P.(C).No.3513 of 2013 : 2 :

¶31

agreed between the parties, the petitioner was

¶32

permitted to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as first installment on or before 14.08.2013 and that amount was not paid and so, Ext.P4 order was passed by the court below, directing sale of the property. According to the petitioner, his friends are prepared to help him to discharge the amount and if three months time is granted, he will be able to pay the amount. Hence, the petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶33

i. set aside the Ext-P4 order passed by the III Additional District Court, Kollam and

¶34

ii. issue a direction to the III Additional District Court, Kollam to postpone the proclamation and sale proceedings in E.P.No.10/2009 in

¶35

Arb.Ref.No.142/2007 after three months and

¶36

iii. issue such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of this case.

¶37

3.When the petition was admitted, there was a direction

¶38

to deposit Rs.30,000/- within two weeks, as per order dated 10.10.2013. That amount was deposited. So, the interim order was extended until further orders as per order dated 24.10.2013. On 05.04.2016, there was

¶39

a direction to deposit Rs.50,000/- within ten days. But,

¶40

O.P.(C).No.3513 of 2013 : 3 :

¶41

that amount was not deposited.

¶42

4.Heard Shri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.C.S.Manilal, the counsel appearing for the respondent – decree holder.

¶43

5.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wants only time for deposit of the amount.

¶44

6.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, as on today, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is due and they have no objection in granting some time for payment of the amount. But, if the payment is not effected as directed by this Court, the decree holder will have to be permitted to proceed with the execution.

¶45

7.Considering the fact that, as on today, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is due and the property is already brought on sale by the court below, this Court feels that some leniency can be shown by giving time for the petitioner to pay off the amount with interest and cost as claimed by the decree holder in the Execution Petition. So, the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶46

The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire balance amount due including interest and

¶47

O.P.(C).No.3513 of 2013 : 4 :

¶48

cost in four equal monthly installments and first of such payment will have to be made on or before 31.08.2016 and further installments will have to

¶49

be paid on or before 31^st of succeeding months. But, the last payment will have to be effected on the expiry of the four months from today, namely, 01.12.2016. If the petitioner pays the first installment on or before 31.08.2016, then, the court below is directed to keep the execution in abeyance for a period of four months. If the petitioner commits any default, then, court below is at liberty to proceed with the execution from the stage at which it was stayed.

¶50

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶51

Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.

¶52

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶53

Bb/03/08/2016

¶54

[True copy] P.A to Judge

Abdul Latheef v. Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef v. Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

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

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs Sunanda

Asha Mukundan Vs Anitha

Jose Vs Bindhu Muraleedharan

Mohandas K.B Vs Syamala

K.Harischandra Holla Vs K.Mohammad Haneef

P.T.Xavier Vs P.v.Vikas