This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition challenging an attachment order against a guarantor. The revision petitioner alleged unwarranted attachment of his salary while his brother, the principal debtor, had his salary deducted regularly.
The third defendant/judgment debtor is directed to the order; the connected Miscellaneous Petition is 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.
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
R.Srikanth ...Petitioner
..Vs..
1.UCO Bank,
Triplicane Branch,
Chennai-5.
2.S.Ramesh
3.Malini Ramesh ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 104 in E.P.No.2024 of 2008 in O.S.No.2450 of 2007, dated 22.06.2009.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 : No appearance
For R2&R3 :Dismissed vide Court order
dated 29.08.2019
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012
O R D E R
The third defendant is the revision petitioner herein.
first respondent-UCO Bank. As he has failed to pay the amount, the UCO Bank filed O.S.No.2450 of 1997 and the same was decreed and E.P was filed by the UCO Bank in E.P.No.204/08 wherein after service of summons as required, the Executing Court ordered attachment of salary of D1 and D3. D1 is the principal debtor and D3 is the Director. Aggrieved against the said order of attachment, the third defendant/judgment debtor has preferred this Civil Revision Petition alleging that since the revision petitioner is only a guarantor, when the principal debtor's salary is regularly deducted, attachment of salary of the revision petitioner is unwarranted. What was attached is only Rs.1000/- per mensem and there is no representation for the petitioner today.
18.02.2020
nvi
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
The X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai 104.
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012
nvi
C.R.P.(PD) No.693 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
18.02.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether attachment of a guarantor's salary is warranted when only a nominal amount is attached and the principal debtor's salary is being regularly deducted.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to quash the attachment order solely on the ground of being a guarantor when the principal debtor is also under attachment.
Srikanth
UCO Bank
S.Ramesh
Malini Ramesh
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
