Dismissed

Jeyendradas v. Muthoot Vehicle

Kerala HC15 Dec 2017OP(C)/1419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Original Civil petition challenging the issuance of arrest warrants against judgment debtors for recovery of decree debt was dismissed. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, noting the debtors appeared through counsel and failed to specifically plead lack of means despite the decree holder's evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Original Civil petition was dismissed. Costs to the respondent were not awarded.

Jeyendradas Vs Muthoot Vehicle — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 1419 of 2017 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 546/2016 of III ADDL.D.C., KOLLAM DATED 17.3.2017

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. JEYENDRADAS S/O. MADHAVAN, KOTTOOR VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA P.O, KOLLAM 691 504.

¶9

2. SNEHA LAL S/O.SUMANGALA, SNEHA NIVAS, PARUMTHUM PARA, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM 691 505.

¶10

3. SALIKUMAR S/O.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, SARADAHA MANDIRAM, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

MUTHOOT VEHICLE & ASSET FINANCE LTD, MUTHOOTU CHAMBERS, KURIAN TOWER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C).No. 1419 of 2017 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT REGARDING SURENDER OF THE VEHICLE TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.546/14 OF 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE DECREE HOLDER REGARDING THE MEANS OF J.DS.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.17 ISSUING WARRRANT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PS TO JUDGE.

jg-22/12

ASHOK MENON, J. -----------------------------------OP(C) No.1419 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioners are judgment debtors in EP No.546/2014 in Arbitration No.66/2011 on the file of the III Addl. District Judge, Kollam. There is no appearance for the respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of arrest warrants to realise the decree debt. It is seen that the judgment debtors had entered appearance through counsel and the decree holder had sought for issuance of arrest warrant to execute the decree. The decree holder was present and examined, when the decree holder had stated that the judgment debtors have sufficient means to pay the decree debt. This has not been controverted in cross examination by the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors. More over, there is no specific plea of “no means” seen raised by the judgment debtors. In view of the statement made in the execution petition that the judgment debtors have sufficient means to pay the amount, all that was required is a solemn affirmation by the decree holder before the

¶32

OP(C)1419/17.

¶33

-2-

¶34

court regarding the means of the judgment debtors, which is done and is uncontroverted. Hence, as per Ext.P4 order, the court below was pleased to issue arrest warrant against the judgment debtors. It is this order which is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find fault with the order passed by the court below, as the judgment debtors were given sufficient notice and they had also appeared through counsel. There is no infirmity in Ext.P4 order. This original petition, therefore, fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶35

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶36

Jeyendradas v. Muthoot Vehicle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyendradas v. Muthoot Vehicle

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

M.P. Chothy Vs Ajayan

Shibu P.Jacob Vs Sub Inspector of Police Thrissur East

Shaiju.M.T. Vs State of Kerala

Jyothi Nivas Jyoti Super Bazar Vs Sabur Alikhan

V.Christopher Vs Saranya B.Rajendran

Damodaran C. Vs a.Karunakaran Nair