HDFC BANK Vs. SWAMYNATHAN T S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first of these petitions is filed by the creditor/hdfc Bank and the latter is filed by the debtor/swamynathan. What is challenged in both the Writ Petitions is Ext. P7 (Ext. P6 in W. P. C. 28867/08) common order passed by the district Judge, Palakkad on I. A. 888/08 and i. A. 961/08 in O. P. (Arb)No. 2/08. As per I. A. 888/08, the debtor/swamynathan advanced prayer to release the vehicle on executing a kachit in the event of its attachment and as per i. A. 961/08, the prayer advanced by the creditor/bank is for a direction to the respondent/swamynathan to give back possession of the vehicle sought to be attached vide i. A. 6/08. As per I. A. 6/08 (Ext. P2), the creditor/bank sought for a conditional order of attachment of a Tempo Minidor vehicle bearing registration No. KL-9-T-5122 in the event of the debtor not furnishing security for an amount of Rs. 3,81,348/ -.

(2.) IT is submitted that the vehicle was removed from the jurisdiction of the District court, Palakkad and therefore, attachment of the vehicle could not be effected. In the meanwhile, the order of attachment was kept in abeyance vide Ext. P4 order dt. 26/03/08 on i. A. 6/08 till 21/05/08 directing inter alia that in the meanwhile, the debtor shall furnish sufficient security for the arbitration claim involved in O. P. (Arb)No. 2/08 including the interest and cost and in case of failure, the attachment shall stand revived. The debtor thereafter, filed Ext. P5 petition (I. A. 888/08) seeking for a direction to release the vehicle on executing a kachit in the event of its attachment and the creditor/bank filed I. A. 961/08 for a direction being issued to the debtor to give back possession of the vehicle sought to be attached by an order of mandatory injunction. The District Judge vide Ext. P7 common order dt. 03/07/08 on I. A Nos. 888/08 and 961/08 ordered that the vehicle will be released after attachment on the debtor executing a kachit to the effect that he will pay rs. 10,000/- per month to the bank on or before the 15th of every month and that in the event of default of any one of the instalments the kachit will stand cancelled and the vehicle will be proceeded against and directing further, inter alia that the vehicle shall be produced before court as and when directed by the court. Counsel for the bank submits that even after the said common order not a pie is paid and therefore, a mandatory injunction be issued to the respondent/debtor to produce the aforesaid vehicle before the District Judge, palakkad forthwith. Writ Petition No. 28867/08 filed by the debtor is to set aside the common order dt. 03/07/08 on I. A Nos. 888/08 and 961/08. Counsel for the debtor submits that the Writ Petition is filed in view of the direction to make payment at the rate of rs. 10,000/- per month. All the same, he has no case that the amount ordered to be paid is excessive or that the petitioner is unable to pay the amount. There is no merit therefore, in Writ Petition No. 28867/08. W. P. C No. 23041/08 deserves to be allowed directing the respondent/debtor to produce before the district Judge, Palakkad Tempo Minidor vehicle bearing registration No. KL-9-T-5122 positively within one week from today.

(3.) W. P. C. No. 28867/08 is hence, dismissed and W. P. C. No. 23041/08 is disposed of with direction to the respondent therein to produce before the District Judge, Palakkad, Tempo minidor vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-9-T-5122 positively within one week from today.