Runs Mon v. Simpol
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition under Article 227 regarding conditional attachment of movable properties was disposed of. Bench ruled that with a decree now passed, the proper remedy is a separate execution petition and directed the interim order's continuation for five weeks.
What did the court decide?
Petition closed with liberty to file execution petition; interim restraint on movable properties extended for five weeks.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944
OP(C) NO.13 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 77/2018 OF SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL
COURT, MANJERI
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
RUNS MON
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. K.T. ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, K.P.A. PETROLEUM
RELIANCE OUTLET, NILAMBUR AMSOM, DESOM AND TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329
BY ADVS.
K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
SIMPOL
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. VARKY, POTTAKKAL HOUSE,
VADAPURAM, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329
BY ADV SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the trial court's refusal to attach movable properties, should be permitted to file an execution petition instead of continuing the writ petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RUNS MON
- respondent
SIMPOL
Coram
A. BADHARUDEEN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court