Dismissed

P.Saravanan v. Jayapriya Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC23 Aug 2021CRP/4292/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three civil revision petitions challenging an order directing garnishee proceedings against petitioners to recover an award amount. The court held the order was in order and the petitioners could claim contribution from other liable parties after payment.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

P.Saravanan Vs Jayapriya Chits Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.08.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.27977, 27980 and 27985 of 2019

¶7

P.Saravanan ...Petitioner in C.R.P.No.4292 of 2019 R.Arulprakasam ...Petitioner in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2019 Shanmugavel ...Petitioner in C.R.P.No.4295 of 2019 Vs. 1.Jayapriya Chits Private Limited Kurinjipadi Branch Cuddalore District. 2.The Registrar Annamalai University Chidambaram. ...Respondents in C.R.P.No.4292 of 2019 1.Jayapriya Chits Private Limited Kurinjipadi Branch Cuddalore District. 2.The Secretary SKV Higher Secondary School Kurinjipadi. ...Respondents in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2019

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶9

1/6

¶10

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶11

1.Jayapriya Chits Private Limited Kurinjipadi Branch Cuddalore District. 2.The Registrar Annamalai University Chidambaram.

¶12

...Respondents in C.R.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶13

Common Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order in E.P.No.353 of 2018 in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore and dated 15.07.2019.

¶14

In C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.4292, and 4295 of 2019: For Petitioners : Mr.R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.C.A.Anburaja for R1 Mr.C.Munisamy for R2 In C.R.P.(NPD) No.4293 of 2019: For Petitioners : Mr.R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.C.A.Anburaja for R1

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed, against the order dated

¶17

15.07.2019 in E.P.No.353 of 2018 in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

¶18

2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶20

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶21

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the

¶22

award amount in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013, the petitioners paid the

¶23

instalments and only from 17^th instalment, they defaulted in making

¶24

payment. Though, payments made towards the award amount, part payments had not been considered. Therefore, the order directing the

¶25

garnishee to deduct 1/3^rd amount of the salary of the petitioners is not correct. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for setting aside

¶26

the order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶27

3.Copy of the award dated 15.07.2019 in E.P.No.353 of 2018 in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 is filed. It shows that the award was passed against

¶28

the 7^th respondent in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 including the petitioners and

¶29

the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,53,340/- with 24 %

¶30

interest from the date of institution of the case till the date of realisation of

¶31

the amount with costs. The present execution proceeding is filed against the

¶32

petitioners especially the respondents in the execution proceedings, to deduct their part of the salary towards the award amount. The learned I

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶36

Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, after considering the materials

¶37

produced, passed an order directing the garnishee, the 2^nd respondent herein to exclude the first Rs.1,000/- and 2/3 of the remainder from the salary of

¶38

the petitioners and to recover 1/3 amount alone for 24 months or till Rs.8,000/- is recovered, whichever is earlier and remit the said sum (or 24

¶39

monthly instalments) to the Court. Thus the order in the given facts and circumstances of this case is perfectly in order and I do not find any reason

¶40

to interfere with the order dated 15.07.2019 in E.P.No.353 of 2018 in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

¶41

4.With regard to the claim of the learned counsel for the

¶42

petitioners that when there is principal debtor, the 1^st respondent in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013 and the other respondents are also available, the execution proceeding has to be proceeded against them also. This Court is of the considered view that, it is for the decree holder to decide and proceed

¶43

against the persons, from whom money can be recovered and who are legally liable to pay the money. The liability of a guarantor is co-extensive

¶44

4/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶46

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶47

with that of the principal debtor. The petitioners can very well claim contribution from the other respondents in A.R.C.No.1174 of 2013, after making payment.

¶48

5.With this observation, these Civil Revision Petitions are
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Jer 23.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court of Madras.

¶49

5/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶51

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019

¶52

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J,

¶53

Jer

¶54

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.4292, 4293 and 4295 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.27977, 27980 and 27985 of 2019
23.08.2021

¶55

6/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

P.Saravanan v. Jayapriya Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saravanan v. Jayapriya Chits Pvt. Ltd.

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

Kothanda Naidu Vs R.Padamchand Jain

M.Anandkumar Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Deepa Rajendiran Vs N.Unnikrishnan

Sri Guruvayurappan Asthika Samajam Vs K.Vijayalakshmi

R. Rajaram Vs R. Revathi

Nidhi Bafna, Vs Randeepkaurvirdi