R.Kannan and ors. Vs. Jayapriya Chit Funds Private Limited

R.Kannan and ors. vs Jayapriya Chit Funds Private Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 17, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/928310

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/928310
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.NPD.No.2530 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Kannan and ors.

Advocate Mr.K.A.Ramachandran, Adv

Respondent

Jayapriya Chit Funds Private Limited

Excerpt

civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the sub-court, neyveli, in e.p.no.67 of 2010 in a.r.no.465 of 2009.order1. animadverting upon the order dated dated 14.9.2011 passed by the sub-court, neyveli, in e.p.no.67 of 2010 in a.r.no.465 of 2009, this civil revision petition is filed.2. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who would echo the cri de couer of his clients, namely, the petitioners six in number, to the effect that they stood as sureties for the principal debtor, namely, r2-r.sivaji herein. the executing court simply ordered attachment of the salaries of the petitioners herein/judgement debtors 2 to 6 and 8, which is against law. without considering the objections raised by the sureties/judgement debtors, they are made to bear the brunt.3. perused the records. admittedly, the revision petitioners/judgement debtors 2 to 6 and 8 herein happened to be the sureties and undoubtedly they are also liable along with r2-r.sivaji-the judgement debtor no.1.4. the learned counsel or the revision petitions would submit that there is no parity in attaching the salaries of the petitioners also.5. if there is any grievance relating to the quantum of salaries attached in violation of section 60 of c.p.c., it is open for the petitioners to petition the executing court itself, which would consider the same on merits.6. the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. however, there is no order as to costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Neyveli, in E.P.No.67 of 2010 in A.R.No.465 of 2009.

ORDER

1. Animadverting upon the order dated dated 14.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Neyveli, in E.P.No.67 of 2010 in A.R.No.465 of 2009, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who would echo the cri de couer of his clients, namely, the petitioners six in number, to the effect that they stood as sureties for the principal debtor, namely, R2-R.Sivaji herein. The Executing Court simply ordered attachment of the salaries of the petitioners herein/judgement debtors 2 to 6 and 8, which is against law. Without considering the objections raised by the sureties/judgement debtors, they are made to bear the brunt.

3. Perused the records. Admittedly, the revision petitioners/judgement debtors 2 to 6 and 8 herein happened to be the sureties and undoubtedly they are also liable along with R2-R.Sivaji-the judgement debtor No.1.

4. The learned counsel or the revision petitions would submit that there is no parity in attaching the salaries of the petitioners also.

5. If there is any grievance relating to the quantum of salaries attached in violation of Section 60 of C.P.C., it is open for the petitioners to petition the Executing Court itself, which would consider the same on merits.

6. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties R.Kannan and ors. vs Jayapriya Chit Funds Private Limited Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J.