Dismissed

Mohammed Rafi P.S. v. District Collector

Kerala HC1 Jun 2017WP(C)/10284/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged proceedings against them for their father's non-payment of compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court, noting the counter affidavit clarified no attachment of petitioners' property, closed the writ petition allowing the same.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed allowing the same noting no steps for attachment of petitioners' property were taken.

Mohammed Rafi P.S. Vs District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 10284 of 2017 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MOHAMMED RAFI P.S., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDHEEN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLYPURAM DESOM, CHENTRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MOHAMMED ROUF, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDHEEN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLYPURAM DESOM, CHENTRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. RIYAS P.S., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDHEEN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLYPURAM DESOM, CHENTRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

4. RISHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDHEEN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMPILLYPURAM DESOM, CHENTRAPPINNY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENTRAPINNI, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 10284 of 2017 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC NO.880/2012 DATED 07/12/2015 OF JFCM, KODUNGALLUR.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.4890/2015 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.298/2015 DATED 16/12/2015.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1555/1990 DATED 08/10/1990 OF THRIPRAYAR SUB REGISTRY.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.5469927 DATED 13/03/2014 OF CHENTRAPINNI VILLAGE.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE RR LEDGER/REGISTER.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.10284 of 2017-I.

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶33

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2017.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The father of the petitioners, namely, Sharafudheen suffered a conviction in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment and in addition, to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the father of the petitioners has not paid the compensation directed, steps have been initiated by the respondents against him for realisation of the compensation. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are attempting to realise the compensation payable by their father from them who have nothing to do with the case. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

¶36

A counter affidavit has been filed in this matter.

¶37

Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads thus:

¶38

“It is submitted that the Village Officer only directed the defaulter for paying the fine amount as per Court order and he had not taken any steps for the attachment of property of the petitioners.”

¶39

In the light of the contents of the counter affidavit extracted

¶40

W.P.(C).No.10284/2017-I.

¶41

¶42

above, the petitioners cannot have any more grievance and the writ petition is accordingly closed.

¶43

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Kvs/-

¶45

// true copy //

Mohammed Rafi P.S. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rafi P.S. v. District Collector

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

Vice Chancellor Vs Marymol Moothedan

Sreeraj Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Viswakarma Sabha Vs the District Registrar (General) Manachira

Essa Bin Tarif Essaali Binali Vs the Chief Passport Officer

Neethu Anna Alexander Vs the District Registrar, Ernakulam

Hameed Yafi Vs the Deputy Director of Survey Collectorate