Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
VALSAMMA KURIAN – Appellant
Versus
SWAGATH CHITTES – Respondent
WP(C)/22270/2007
Attachment - Salary - CPC Section 60 - The court examined the provisions of Section 60 of the CPC regarding salary attachment and determined that certain allowances were exempt from attachment. It ruled that the attachable salary had been miscalculated, requiring the previous order to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought to challenge a Munsiff's order which directed the attachment of part of her salary for outstanding payments. The petitioner contended that the calculation of her attachable salary was incorrect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Munsiff had incorrectly included certain allowances in the attachable salary, thus exceeding permissible limits of attachment as defined by law. It concluded that the attachment should be set aside until existing attachments are resolved.
Issues: Whether the attachment of the writ petitioner's salary was lawful under the provisions of Section 60 of the CPC, considering exemptions for certain allowances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the legislative intent behind Section 60 of the CPC, emphasizing the exclusion of certain allowances from attachment and reinforced that only the legally attachable portion of salary should be considered.
Final Decision: The order of the Munsiff was set aside, and no further salary attachment was to occur until existing attachments were resolved.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the Munsiff, Vaikom in E.P.150/06. As per the said order the learned Munsiff has directed attachment of salary at the rate of Rs.2,500/- for 24 months of Smt. Valsamma, the 2nd judgment debtor who is the writ petitioner before me. Along with the writ petition, the writ petitioner has produced her salary certificate as Ext.P4. It would show that her total emoluments per month is Rs.12,953/- out of which Rs.7,375/- is the basic pay. Rest of the amount is D.A., H.R.A. and C.C.A. From this amount, amount is deducted for P.F., LIC etc. As per the decision of this Court reported in Sasidharan v. KCTSS Sangam (1994 (1) KLT 429), D.A., C.C.A. and H.R.A. are to be excluded as they are exempted from attachment by notification by the Government. When it is so, the total salary that can be considered u/s 60 will be Rs.7,375/-. As per law first 1,000/- rupees has to be deducted and 2/3 of the remainder also has to be excluded. If it is done, then the total attachable salary that will be available will be Rs.2,125/-. A perusal of the salary certificate would show that at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month the Court attachment is effected in O.S.174 and O.S.175/00 by the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. So when the attachable salary is only Rs.2,125/- there is attachment of about Rs.3,400/- and now if a further attachment is ordered it will be totally against law and therefore for the time being there is no attachable salary in this case and therefore the order requires interference. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the Munsiff is directed not to have any attachment from the salary of the writ petitioner till the attachment that exists is over in the other two cases and further attachment can be done only as contemplated under the proviso to S.60(1)(i) of CPC.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
