Disposed

S.Jayabalan, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP(MD)/192/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Application disposed of where applicant agreed to pay decree amount with interest within 12 weeks, resulting in release of salary attachment and issuance of No Due Certificate. Default would result in continuation of attachment.

What did the court decide?

Gazetted date of payment within twelve weeks release order of attachment. Direction to 1st respondent to issue No Due Certificate upon payment.

S.Jayabalan, Vs the Managing Director — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.09.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.M.DURAISWAMY

¶4

Review Application (MD) No.192 of 2017

¶5

in C.R.P.(MD) No.325 of 2015 & CMP (MD) Nos.8425, 8487 & 8488 of 2017

¶6

A.Kandhappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Door No.70H,

¶9

Balavinayakar Kovil Street, Tuticorin.

¶10

S.Latha

¶11

S.Sarathi

¶12

C.Paul Pandi

¶13

The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Office of the Executive Engineer, Tamil nadu Electricity Board,

¶14

Tiruchendur Division,

¶15

Tuticorn District. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Order 47 Rule Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.325 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

¶17

Prayer in CRP(MD). 325/ 2014 :

¶18

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and executable order dated 03.06.2013 passed in EP.No.10/2012 in A.R.O.P.No.52/2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

¶19

For Applicant : Mr.R.Karthikeyan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.J.Bharathan - for R1

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

Mr.Jothi Ramalingam - for R2 & R3 No appearance - for R4

¶23

Mr.Senthil Kumaran (TNEB) - for R5

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The matter has been listed today and heard through Video Conferencing.

¶27

The applicant, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.10 of 2012 in A.R.O.P.No.52 of 2010, on the file of Principal District Court, Tuticorin, has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (MD) No.325 of 2014 challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 03.06.2013 ordering attachment of salary.

¶28

This Court, by order dated 10.12.2014, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition finding that the borrower and the guarantors are jointly and severally liable to pay the decree amount.

¶29

The applicant is one of the guarantors. Now, the applicant has filed the above Review Application to review the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD) No.325 of 2014.

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicant/Judgment Debtor submitted that the applicant is willing to settle the matter with the decree holder and in the event of the applicant paying the entire decree amount, the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court may be raised.

¶31

Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel taking notice for the 1st respondent/decree holder submitted that the applicant and the respondents 2 to 4 are liable to pay the total sum of Rs.68,000/(Rupees sixty eight thousand only) and that if the applicant pays the said sum of Rs.68,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Execution Petition till the date of actual payment, the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court, may be raised.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant also agreed to pay the said sum of Rs.68,000/together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Execution Petition till the date of actual payment. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant sought twelve weeks time for paying the amount together with accrued interest, for which, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/decree holder is agreeable.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ either side, the applicant is directed to pay the said sum of Rs.68,000/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand only) together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

¶34

¶35

filing of the Execution Petition till the date of actual payment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such payment, the order of attachment passed in E.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Court, Tuticorin shall stand raised. In the case of the applicant defaulted in paying the said amount within the stipulated time, the order of attachment passed by the Executing Court, shall continue. On making payment of the amount, the 1st respondent/decree holder is directed to issue No Due Certificate to the applicant/Judgment Debtor.

¶36

With these observations, the Review Application is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

The Principal District Judge, Tuticorn .

¶43

The Executive Engineer (Distribution) Office of the Executive Engineer Tamil nadu Electricity Board Tiruchendur Divisional Tuticorn District.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate Sr.No.78551

¶45

+1cc to Mr.J.Bharathan, Advocate Sr.No.78585

¶46

+1cc to Mr.M.Jothi Ramalingam, Advocate Sr.No.78550

¶47

¶48

VB/SV/MMS/SAR2/25/09/2017/3P/6C

¶49

Review Application (MD) No.192 of 2017 in

¶50

C.R.P.(MD) No.325 of 2015 & CMP (MD) Nos.8425, 8487 & 8488 of 2017 11.09.2017

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Jayabalan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jayabalan, v. the Managing Director

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

K.Lakshmanan Vs the Principal Secretary

K.Angusamy Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Murugeswari Vs the District Collector

V.Arasan, S/O.Vaiyapuri, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Sivamurugan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Perumal Vs the Managing Director