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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more