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

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more