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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more