Dismissed

Manikandan v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017FAO/250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal arising from the closure of an execution petition, the High Court of Kerala held that the execution court had properly disposed of the setting aside application remanded by this court. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to challenge the dismissal of the setting aside application separately.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The order closing the execution petition was upheld.

Manikandan Vs Shriram Transport Finance Company… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939 FAO.No. 250 of 2016 () -----------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2016 IN E.P.NO.16/2009 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.136/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, KOTTAYAM

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/PETITIONERS:

¶7

MANIKANDAN S/O. SUBRAHMANYAN, PAYYAMPALLYCHIRA HOUSE, KARAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARAPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SANTHI MANIKANDAN W/O. MANIKANDAN, PAYYAMPALLY CHIRA HOSUE, KARAPUZHA VILLAGE, KARAPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. SMT.SMITHA PILLAI

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:

¶9

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED GEETHA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER V.K.SUNILKUMAR, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, DESAM KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA NAIR R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.G.NISHA R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.D.SARANYA

¶11

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

P.N. Ravindran & Devan Ramachandran, JJ.

¶13

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

¶14

F.A.O.No.250 of 2016

¶15

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th November, 2017

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶18

This appeal arises from the order passed by the Additional District Court I, Kottayam on 19.8.2016 in E.P.No.16 of 2009 in Arbitration Case No.136 of 2007. By the impugned order the court below closed E.P.No.16 of 2009 filed by the decree holder to enforce an award passed by the Arbitrator for the reason that the sale held in execution has been confirmed.

¶19

The main and only ground raised in the instant appeal is that the execution court has not disposed of E.A.No.57 of 2010 which was remanded for reconsideration by this court in F.A.O.No.363 of 2010 filed by the decree holder and that without disposing of the application to set aside the sale, the court below erred in closing the execution petition. It is stated that the execution court had by order passed on 9.6.2010 allowed E.A.No.57 of 2010, an application filed by the judgment debtor to have the sale held in execution set aside, that this court had by judgment delivered on 11.3.2014 in F.A.O.No.363 of 2010 set aside the order allowing E.A.No.57 of 2010 and directed the execution court to reconsider the application after giving both sides an

¶20

FAO 250/2016

¶21

¶22

opportunity to adduce evidence. But the sale was confirmed without the said application being disposed of afresh.

¶23

An examination of the lower court records disclose that the execution court has, after the order of remand by this court, dismissed E.A.No.57 of 2010 by order passed on 16.8.2016 after holding that the sale was conducted in accordance with the established procedure and that it does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The execution court thereafter confirmed the sale on 19.8.2016. It was thereupon that the impugned order was passed closing the execution petition. The appellant cannot therefore contend that the court below has not disposed of E.A.No.57 of 2010 afresh. The appellant cannot in our opinion, without challenging the order dismissing E.A.No.57 of 2010, challenge the order impugned in this appeal by which the execution petition was closed recording satisfaction of the award.

¶24

This appeal is in our opinion misconceived and without any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(P.N. Ravindran, Judge)

¶26

(Devan Ramachandran, Judge)

¶27

kav/

Manikandan v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

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

The Secretary, Sholayur Grama Panchayath Vs M/S. Pentatech System

Krishnan Vs Kunjandi (Died)

State of Kerala Vs P.E.Balachandran

The Senior Divisional Manager Vs C.Anil Kumar

State of Kerala Vs Rukya, W/O.T.a.Mohammad Kunhi Haji

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Joshy Varghese