Purushothaman. Vs. Ranganathan

Purushothaman vs Ranganathan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 18, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927095

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/927095
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Apr 18, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.(NPD).No.1462 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education
Acts & sections: Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Purushothaman

Advocate Mr.R.Gururaj, Adv.

Respondent

Ranganathan

Legal References

Acts: Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.

Excerpt

civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the additional subordinate judge, cuddalore, in e.p.no.93 of 2009 in o.s.no.20 of 2006.order1. inveighing the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the additional subordinate judge, cuddalore, in e.p.no.93 of 2009 in o.s.no.20 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focused.2. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. a brief recounting of the germane facts would run thus:e.p.no.93 of 2009 in o.s.no.20 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in o.s.no.20 of 2006 for attaching the property of the revision petitioner/judgement debtor herein. however, the revision petitioner/judgement debtor filed counter resisting the e.p.on the main ground that already under the special enactment, namely, tamil nadu protection of interest of depositors act, attachment was effected and in such a case, the property cannot be attached by the civil court. however, the executing court, after hearing both sides, held that absolutely there was no bar for attaching the property under this e.p.4. i would like to hark back to the proposition that a property can be attached for the second time also under a different decree and there is no embargo in that aspect. as such, i could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the executing court.5. in the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. however, there is no order as to costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006.

ORDER

1. Inveighing the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. A brief recounting of the germane facts would run thus:

E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in O.S.No.20 of 2006 for attaching the property of the revision petitioner/judgement debtor herein. However, the revision petitioner/judgement debtor filed counter resisting the E.P.on the main ground that already under the special enactment, namely, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, attachment was effected and in such a case, the property cannot be attached by the civil Court. However, the Executing Court, after hearing both sides, held that absolutely there was no bar for attaching the property under this E.P.

4. I would like to hark back to the proposition that a property can be attached for the second time also under a different decree and there is no embargo in that aspect. As such, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court.

5. In the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Purushothaman vs Ranganathan Same Subject Education Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J. Acts & Sections Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.