Quashed

Kerala State Beverages Corpn.Ltd. v. M/S.Live Line Marketing Federation

Kerala HC2 Aug 2019Ex.FA/32/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This execution appeal challenges an order attaching the appellant-garnishee's deposit held from the judgment debtor. The Court held the deposit secures a contract and is not attachable until the contract terminates or expires, as dues may only be then determined. Impugned order set aside with directions for fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; fresh orders directed for lower court to consider contract termination and dues determination.

Kerala State Beverages Corpn.Ltd. Vs M/S.Live Line… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Ex.FA.No.32 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 468/05 IN OS 360/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 07-09-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/GARNISHEE:

¶8

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITSMANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO. M. AND M.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER-JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶12

1 M/S.LIVE LINE MARKETING FEDERATION SERVICES (P) LTD., IIIRD FLOOR, NATIONAL RESIDENCY BANK JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2 M/S. SAM DISTILLERIES & BREWERIES LTD., 23 ZONE II MAHARANA PRATAP NAGAR, BHOPAL 462 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, J.R.KINGSLEY, S/O. A. J. FERNANDES, RESIDING AT DOMAIN CHULLIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R1

¶15

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Ex. F.A. No.32 of 2007

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Aggrieved by an order of attachment, the garnishee is in appeal.

¶21

The first respondent obtained a decree for money against the second respondent. The amounts of the second respondent alleged to be lying with the appellant was sought to be attached. The appellantgarnishee contends that the amounts have been deposited with them by the second respondent under a contract entered into between the parties, and that the amount represents the earnest money deposit under the contract. It was claimed that the amounts due to the appellant-garnishee from the 2^nd respondent is liable to be deducted therefrom and hence the attachment cannot be sustained.

¶22

The court below as per the impugned order overruled the objections of the garnishee.

¶23

Heard Sri.T.Naveen, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.N.Subramanian, learned counsel

¶24

Ex. F.A. No.32 of 2007

¶25

:- 2 :-

¶26

for the 1^st respondent.

¶27

That the amounts of the second respondentjudgment debtor, lying with the appellant in deposit is earnest money deposit made on the basis of a contract entered into between the appellant and the second respondent, is not under dispute. It being so, necessarily the deposit is to secure the contract and to enable realisation of amounts, if any, due from the second respondent to the appellant-garnishee under the contract. As to what is the exact amount due/payable by the second respondent to the appellant-garnishee, which is liable to be realised/appropriated from the earnest money deposit could be decided only after the termination or expiry of the period of contract. The first respondent-decree holder is not entitled to raise any claim over the said amount during the subsistence of the contract which is sought to be secured by the earnest money deposit.

¶28

Therefore, the court ought to have

¶29

considered as to whether the contract was terminated and any amount was lying with the

¶30

Ex. F.A. No.32 of 2007 :- 3 :-

¶31

appellant-garnishee on termination/expiry of the contract and remaining to be paid back to the second respondent. Unless any such amount lies with the appellant-garnishee, the first respondentdecree holder is not entitled to proceed against the same. The matter needs to be re-looked by the court below in the light of the above.

¶32

In the result, the order impugned is set aside. Fresh orders shall be passed by the court below in the light of the observations made above. Parties to appear before the execution court on 26.08.2019.

¶33

Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶34

kns/-

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

P.S. to Judge

Kerala State Beverages Corpn.Ltd. v. M/S.Live Line Marketing Federation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Beverages Corpn.Ltd. v. M/S.Live Line Marketing Federation

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

Abdul Salam Vs Mohammes Ashraf

Mary Matha College of Engineeringand Technology Vs Manikandan

P.P.Shameem Vs Alathankandy Korapurath Zareena Hassan

N.X.Joseph Vs Xavier Julian

M.P.Viswanathan Vs Afsal

Rooban.K.C (Ruban K.C) Vs Jude Thadevus