Partly allowed

M/S.Muthoor Vehicle v. Kuriakose Eilas Paarel

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016OP(C)/357/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order clarifies that under CPC Order 38 Rule 5, no law mandates the attached property must be within the court's territorial limits. The Court directed the lower court to reconsider the notice issued to respondents regarding attachment of out-of-jurisdiction property.

What did the court decide?

Lower court directed to reconsider notice on attachment property jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders.

M/S.Muthoor Vehicle Vs Kuriakose Eilas Paarel — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 357 of 2016 (O)

¶6

-------------------------I.A. NO.202/2016 IN OP(ARB) NO.44/2016 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M/S. MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, COCHIN DENTAL CLINIC BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.MADHU E., S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 39.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KURIAKOSE ELIAS PAAREL, S/O.P.T. ELIAS, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAAREL HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 121.

¶12

2. LIDIYA KURIAKOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, PAAREL HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 121.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

OP(C).No. 357 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 25-03-2009 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

¶19

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 22-06-2013 IN OP(ARB).515/2011 OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OP. 44/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE IA. 202/2016 IN OP. 44/2016 OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4.

¶23

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 202/2016 IN OP.44/2016 DT. 28-01-2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶29

O.P.(C) No.357 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.(Arbt.) No.44 of 2016 of Additional District Court-VI, Ernakulam. He filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. It is submitted that as the judge was of the opinion that since the property sought to be attached is outside its jurisdiction, attachment order cannot be passed and so it issued notice to the respondents. It is made clear that so far as attachment is concerned under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C no law demands that property should be within the territorial limits of the court in which the application is filed. The lower court is directed to take it into consideration and pass appropriate orders.

¶33

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶34

M/S.Muthoor Vehicle v. Kuriakose Eilas Paarel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Muthoor Vehicle v. Kuriakose Eilas Paarel

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

Padmini Vs Krishnankutty

Alexander Mathew Vs P.v.Rajamma

Ummer Vs Abdul Rasheed

Sudheer Bose Vs Shajahan

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India Vs the South Indian Bank

M.R.Gopi Vs Kochuthressia