G.Sathyan Vs B.Vasudevan (Deseed) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

G.Sathyan Vs B.Vasudevan (Deseed) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application closed without adjudication; liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking the very same relief depending upon the outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024; both parties at liberty to file a memo before the Executing Court seeking early disposal of E.A.No.3 of 2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's present application seeking permission to withdraw the monies lying to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011 is maintainable, given that a similar application was withdrawn by him on 08.02.2018 during an earlier execution petition and a fresh execution petition is now pending before the Executing Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The present application is closed, with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking the very same relief depending upon the outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024 pending in E.P.No.143 of 2023, and both parties may file a memo before the Executing Court seeking early disposal of E.A.No.3 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

Because the Executing Court has already taken up the respondent/decree holder's attachment application E.A.No.3 of 2024 concerning the funds lying to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011, there is no necessity for this Court to adjudicate the present application seeking permission to withdraw those funds; adjudication must await the outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order (Abdul Quddhose, J., dated 04.06.2025) closing A.No.4920 of 2023 in O.P.No.553 of 2011, wherein the applicant G.Sathyan sought permission to withdraw the monies lying to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011 (disposed of on 22.04.2016, upheld by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the amount deposited pursuant to this Court's directions). Since the Executing Court is already seized of the respondent/decree holder's attachment application E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.143 of 2023 (adjourned to 17.07.2025) over the same funds, the Court declined adjudication at this stage, closed the application, granted liberty to re-file the same relief upon the outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024, and permitted both parties to file a memo before the Executing Court for its early disposal. No statute or precedent is cited; no quantum is awarded.

A.No.4920 of 2023

A.No.4920 of 2023 in

O.P.No.553 of 2011

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

G.Sathyan

... Applicant

Vs

B.Vasudevan (deceased) 1.Sujatha Vasudevan and 3 others

... Respondents

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the Executing Court, the respondent/decree holder has filed an application seeking attachment of the money lying to the credit of this O.P.No.553 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.04.2016. The Executing Court, after hearing both the counsels, has adjourned the matter to 17.07.2025.

The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out to this Court

that as early as on 08.02.2018, the applicant had withdrawn a similar application which was filed by him when the earlier execution petition filed by the respondent/decree holder was pending. He would submit

1/4

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

A.No.4920 of 2023

that thereafter, the earlier execution petition was withdrawn and a fresh execution petition was filed by the respondent/decree holder and the same is pending consideration by the Executing Court. Therefore, he would submit that the present application is not maintainable.

Admittedly, the Executing Court is now considering the application filed by the respondent/decree holder seeking for attachment of the monies which are now lying to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.04.2016, which was also upheld by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said amount was deposited by the applicant to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011 pursuant to the directions given by this Court.

According to the applicant, under the arbitral award, no monies are due and payable by the applicant to the respondent, as the arbitral award only directed the parties to sell the property and appropriate the sale proceeds amongst the applicant and the respondent. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

2/4

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

A.No.4920 of 2023

Since this Court is not going to decide whose statement is true at this stage, as the Executing Court has already taken up the application, namely, E.A.No.3 of 2024 filed by the respondent/decree holder seeking attachment of the funds now lying to the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011 before this Court, there is no necessity for this Court to decide the present application seeking permission to withdraw the amount lying in the credit of O.P.No.553 of 2011 for the present, as any adjudication of this application will have to wait outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024 pending on the file of the Executing Court.

For the foregoing reasons, this application is closed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a fresh application seeking for the very same relief depending upon the outcome of E.A.No.3 of 2024, which is pending consideration by the Executing Court in E.P.No.143 of 2023. Both the parties are at liberty to file a memo before the Executing Court seeking for early disposal of E.A.No.3 of 2024.

04.06.2025

rkm

3/4

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

A.No.4920 of 2023

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. rkm

A.No.4920 of 2023 in O.P.No.553 of 2011

04.06.2025

4/4

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