R. Vijay, v. a. Marimuthu
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court set aside a trial court order attaching property of the defendant, holding that a government servant who filed an undertaking not to alienate property should not be proceeded against for attachment. The undertaking was recorded.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order of attachment set aside; undertaking recorded; no costs.
What the court decided
C.R.P(MD)No.23 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.23 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.140 of 2023
R.Vijay
... Petitioner
Vs.
A.Marimuthu
... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order in I.A.No.436 of 2022 in O.S.No.488 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.K.Guhan
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether attachment lien could be imposed on a judgment debtor who is a government servant and has given an undertaking not to alienate the property.
Whether the trial court ought to have recorded the undertaking before passing the attachment order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
R.Vijay
- respondent
A.Marimuthu
Coram
R.Vijayakumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court