Dismissed

S.Basith Ibrahim v. Syndicate Bank

Madras HC10 Mar 2020CRP(MD)/1607/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Article 226 regarding an execution petition over a Lok Adalat decree, the Court dismissed the petition by the judgment debtors. The lower court had directed monthly salary deductions for recovery, which was challenged. The Court upheld the lower order due to significant delays and admitted facts of non-payment.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000 payable to the Women Lawyers' Association.

S.Basith Ibrahim Vs Syndicate Bank — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1607 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1607 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012

¶3

1.S.Basith Ibrahim 2.P.Palanichamy

¶4

: Petitioners/Respondents/Respondents

¶5

.. Vs ..

¶6

Syndicate Bank, Thamaraipadi Branch, Dindigul Taluk, rep. by The Branch Manager : Respondent/Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decretal order dated 11.04.2012 made in E.P.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul in L.A.C.No.236 of 2007 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul and set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mahendran For Respondent : Mr.A.M.P.Pugazhenthi

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The judgment debtors in the proceedings for recovery of money are the revision petitioners. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition earlier filed an execution petition for enforcement of the decree in L.A.C.No.236 of 2007 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul.

¶11

2.As per the decree, a sum of Rs.1,12,579/- is due from the judgment debtors. The respondent, thereafter, filed an execution petition in E.P.No.28 of 2009 in L.A.C.No.236 of 2007 for directing the respondent to recover the money from the salary of revision petitioners at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors have preferred the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

3.Having regard to the admitted facts, the petitioners have suffered a decree in terms of the award of Lok Adalat. It is also admitted that the money due to the respondent is not paid by the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the decree holder namely the Bank filed an execution petition in E.P.No.28 of 2009 in L.A.C.No.236 of 2007 by directing payment at the rate of Rs.3,000/per month after recording the fact that the petitioner is drawing a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/2

¶14

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1607 of 2012

¶15

salary of Rs.10,000/- and that a sum of Rs.9,000/- is available after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards personal expenses. Having regard to the facts admitted and recorded by the lower Court which is under challenge before this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no grounds to sustain the above Civil Revision Petition. The revision petition is pending for more than eight years and substantial injustice is done to the decree holder. The Civil Revision Petition is nothing but a calculated attempt to deprive the respondent/decree-holder to recover the amount. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to the Bubbles Day Care being run by the Women Lawyers' Association, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Post this matter after two weeks from the date of issuance of this order 'for reporting compliance'.

¶17

Assistant Registrar ()

¶18

// True Copy //

¶19

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) SRM To 1.The Additional District Munsif , Dindigul.

¶20

2.The District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul. 3.The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Thamaraipadi Branch, Dindigul Taluk.

¶21

COPY TO

¶22

The Officer in Charge, Bubbles Day Care run by Women Lawyer's Association, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶23

+1 CC to MR.J.LAWRENCE, Advocate ( SR-11030[F] dated 11/03/2020 ) C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1607 of 2012 10.03.2020

¶24

VB(06.05.2020) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

2/2

S.Basith Ibrahim v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Basith Ibrahim v. Syndicate Bank

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

C.Muniandi Vs v.Chandra Sekaran

Solaimalai Vs Chandrasekaran

The Deputy Registrar of Vs a.C.Anbanantham

R. Mathaiyan Vs Ramu

Karnamaharajan (Died) Vs Kalaiyarasi

Mr.M.Venkatasamy Naicker Vs K.Gurusamy