IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SUNIL KUMAR E.K – Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks legal remedy against salary attachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observes recovery action has been lifted. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. writ petition is consequently closed. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The relief sought for by the petitioner is as follows:
“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and command the 1st respondent lift the salary attachment order and abate further recovery from the salary of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner alleges that he is working as a lab assistant in the Government HSS Kamballur and that he had joined a chitty transaction in 2012 with the 3rd respondent. Since liability was incurred, the 3rd respondent initiated revenue recovery proceedings. According to the petitioner, the amounts due to the 3rd respondent is being recovered from his salary, contrary to Section 60 Code of Civil Procedure , 1908.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, upon instructions, submitted that after filing of this writ petition, recovery from the salary has been lifted.
4. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel as mentioned above, is hereby recorded.
5. Since recovery from t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.