Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
SHEMINA SIDDIQUE – Appellant
Versus
POTHANICAUD FARMERS COOPERATIVE BANK LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent's arguments against appeal. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. addressing salary attachment procedure as per legal provisions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of the trial court's oversight. (Para 6) |
| 4. remittance for fresh consideration detailed. (Para 7) |
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025 This original petition is filed by the petitioner/
judgment debtor for challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam, in EP.110/2023 in ARC
2329/2016 dated 27.01.2025
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed an arbitration case and obtained the award and filed E.P 110/2023 for attaching the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection before the court under Section 60 of CPC. But the objection was not properly considered by the trial court and passed the order of attachment. Accordingly, three months’ salary has been attached. Therefore, the trial court ought to have given time gap as per (1 (a)(i), but the same was not considered. Therefore, prayed for set aside the same.
4. It is also subm
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
