Skip to main content

Pension Can't be Attached for Recovering Money: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the pension amount, received by a retiree on account of his past services, should not be attached in execution of any decree or order for realisation of money.

Justice V Chitambaresh passed the order while hearing a petition filed by 59-year-old Leela Bhai of Kottarakkara challenging the order of Sub Court, Kottarakkara, granting permission to attach the pension amount of her.   The Indian Overseas Bank had obtained a decree for realisation of money from the petitioner. The execution court ordered attachment from pension at the rate of  `6,300 per month.

The petitioner contended that no part of the pension could be attached under the Pensions Act 1871 and Kerala Service Rules, 1959. The bank took the stand that stipend and gratuities allowed to pensioners had been exempted from attachments under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

The court observed that pension was specifically exempted from attachment under the Act. Even rule 124 of part III of the Kerala Service Rules had been worded identically.   The court further observed that it was clear that the amount of pension received by a retiree on account of his/her past services shall not be attached in execution of any decree or order of any court.

The court set aside the attachment order passed by the lower court on a petition filed by the bank. However, the judge permitted the subordinate court of Kottarakkara to go ahead with the execution proceeding by other permissible modes.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Pension-Cant-be-Attached-for-Recovering-Money-HC/2014/03/11/article2102150.ece#.Ux8jovmSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more