The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order attaching the salary of respondents to recover a decretal amount from an arbitration award. The court held there was no error warranting interference.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.811 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Manimaran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Shriram City Union Finance
(P) Ltd., Branch Manager
Cuddalore, having office at
Cuddalore.
2.Kumar
3.Manjini
(Respondents 2 and 3 are not
necessary parties to the revision petition) .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C.,
against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 made in
E.P.No.44 of 2013 in A.C.P.No.119 of 2012 on the file of the I
Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj
For R1 : No appearance
R2 and R3 : Given up
2
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 made in E.P.No.44 of 2013 in A.C.P.No.119 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.
realise the decretal amount. The petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 took number of adjournments. Petitioner filed counter and the
3
same was adopted by the third respondent. After filing the counter, E.P. was adjourned for number of hearings for enquiry and subsequently for payment. The petitioner was paying meagre amounts even though the Court directed the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to make substantial payment. After considering the above facts, the learned Judge ordered attachment of salary of the respondents 2 and 3 by order dated 16.12.2014 ordered attachment of salary of the respondents 2 and 3 to an extent of Rs.9,000/- per month each for 24 months or till realisation of the decree amount whichever is earlier. Against the said order dated 16.12.2014 made in E.P.No.44 of 2013 in A.C.P.No.119 of 2012, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is first respondent in E.P.
4
view of the same, the Executing Court ordered attachment of salary of the respondents 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note that the respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any proceedings challenging the order. There is no error in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court.
5
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
kj
C.R.P.(NPD)No.811 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
08.01.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of salary attachment warrants interference by the High Court.
Whether the Executing Court erred in ordering attachment of salary to realise the decretal amount.
If the petition discloses a substantive error warranting revisional interference.
V. Manimaran
Shriram City Union Finance (P) Ltd.
Kumar
Manjini
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
