Skip to main content

Attachment Before Judgment: Kerala HC Clarifies That Order On Claim Petition Is Appealable As Decree

The High Court of Kerala has clarified that an order adjudicating a claim over a property under attachment before judgment is appealable as if it was a decree. The clarification was made by a division bench comprising Justice V Chitambaresh and Justice Narayana Pisharadi, answering a reference whether such an order could be challenged in an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The reference was occasioned when the registry refused to assign a number to an original petition filed challenging an order on claim petition, on the ground that it was original petition was not maintainable as the order was appealable. The decision of a single judge in Ali v Muhammadali 1995(2) KLT 225 was cited. However, the single bench overruled the objection of the registry by relying on a decision of division bench in Anto Mamkoottam v Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative Bank 1996(2) KLT 962. In view of the ensuing confusion, the reference to division bench was made.

The division bench noted that as per Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claim petitions on property under attachment before judgment should be adjudicated in the manner provided for adjudication of claims with respect to property under attachment in execution of a decree. The claims for properties under attachment in execution are to be dealt with as per Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. The orders made under Order XXI Rule 58 have the same force as if it were a decree, as per Rule 58(4). Therefore, an order on claim petition with respect to property under attachment before judgment has the same force as a decree. Therefore, it follows that such an order is appealable in the same manner a decree can be subjected to appeal, as per Section 96 of the CPC.

The division bench also held that the single bench misquoted the decision in Anto Mamkoottam while overruling the objections of the registry.

Reference was made by the division bench to the decision of a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy v Gunti Yeshodha and Another AIR 2005 AP 95 to arrive at the conclusion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more