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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more