Allowed

Sujith C.M. v. M/S.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Kerala HC26 Sept 2023CRP/433/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition allowed. The High Court set aside an execution order finding the petitioner had sufficient means, holding that a witness's unsubstantiated claim without specific figures was insufficient to establish liability. The lower court was directed to reconsider the execution petition within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; learned Additional District Judge directed to reconsider Execution Petition No.182 of 2013 after affording necessary opportunities to both sides within four months.

Sujith C.M. Vs M/S.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRP NO. 433 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 182/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
& SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

SUJITH C.M.
PULIYANKADU, CHERAYA,
CHOORAKKODU KONGADU PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

M/S.MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDING,
APOLLO BUNDER, MUMBAI-400001 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRADEESH A.C., LEGAL EXECUTIVE,
AGED 34 YEARS M/S.MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD., THRISSUR.
BBY ADV. DEVAPRASANTH P.J

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

CRP NO. 433 OF 2016 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner impugns the order of the Additional District Judge-II, Palakkad, in Execution Petition No.182 of 2013, on the ground that he has been found to be a person with sufficient means to satisfy the debt under the Arbitration Award obtained by the respondent, without citing any cogent reason and merely because PW1 – the witness of the said respondent - made such an unsubstantiated statement.

¶15

Sri.K.Ravi – learned counsel for the petitioner, added to the afore saying that, his client is not the Award Debtor, but that he is still being proceeded against, solely on the ground that he has saleable interest in the vehicle which was purchased by his father, with the loan availed of by him from the respondent; and hence that a warrant of arrest, under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not have been issued against him. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

¶16

Sri.Devaprasanth P.J. - learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the afore assertion of the petitioner are incorrect and that he is an Award Debtor, who is fully liable to pay the money due under it. He then added that, as has been correctly found by the learned Judge, PW1 – the witness of his

¶17

CRP NO. 433 OF 2016 3

¶18

client – deposed that the petitioner is an electrician and earning sufficient income, which was not controverted by him in any manner, including in cross examination. He asserted that, therefore, the impugned order is irreproachable.

¶19

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.Devaprasath P.J. because, merely for the reason that PW1 testified that the petitioner is an electrician and earning ‘ sufficient income by doing wiring work’ (sic), the Court could have assumed that he had sufficient means. This is more so since, it is not discernible from the impugned order whether PW1 had mentioned any particular figure which the petitioner was stated to be earning; and this is crucial because, even if assuming that he was earning some amount, the Court ought to have verified whether it is sufficient for him to have discharged the Award Debt. Added to this, is the additional question whether the petitioner is an Award Debtor, and this also does not find any reflection in the impugned order.

¶20

In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the matter will have to be reconsidered by the learned Additional District Judge in its proper perspective, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides.

¶21

Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order

¶22

CRP NO. 433 OF 2016 4

¶23

impugned is set aside; with a consequential direction to the learned Additional District Judge – II, Palakkad, to reconsider Execution Petition No.182 of 2013, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides; thus culminating in appropriate fresh order/orders, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶25

MC/27.9

Sujith C.M. v. M/S.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith C.M. v. M/S.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

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

Unnikrishnan S Vs Murali

K.Kannan Vs the Managing Director

K.Kannan Vs the Kerala Water Authority, Represented by Its Managing Director

Shihabudeen. P Vs District Registrar (General) & District Registrar (Audit)

Marysadan Edathala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

K.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala