Telangana High Court
WP/30603/2011 of P. Ravi Kumar Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited on 29 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30603 of 2011 BETWEEN P. Ravi Kumar. ... PETITIONER AND Bharat Sanchar Nigam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.30603 of 2011
BETWEEN
P. Ravi Kumar.
... PETITIONER
AND
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, West Godavari District and two others.
...RESPONDENTSCounsel for the Petitioner: MR. N.SRIHARI
Counsel for the Respondents: MS. P. SARADA SC FOR BSNL – R1 & R2 MR. MAHESWAR RAO KUNCHAM
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner, who is an employee of the first respondent, admittedly, hasgiven a guarantee in favor of the third respondent with respect to the loanavailed by one Smt. A. Latha W/o. Dhanraj. It appears that the said borrower committed defaults, which lead to the third respondent filing an arbitration case being ARC.No.63 of 2010 before theArbitrator, Eluru and after securing the award on 14.05.2010; the thirdrespondent put it to execution in E.P.No.143 of 2011 in ARC.No.63 of 2010before the learned II Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.In pursuance of the attachment order passed by the executing Court, thepetitioner’s salary, in the capacity as a guarantor, was attached and the saidattachment effected on 29.04.2011 appears to have continued for some time.Petitioner states that, thereafter, the entire claim of the thirdrespondent/decree holder in the said EP was amicably settled and paid andthe said decree holder filed a full satisfaction memo before the executingCourt on 27.06.2011.2. Petitioner has produced a copy of the certified copy of the docketproceeding of the executing Court, which reads that the decree holder filedF.S. (full satisfaction) memo; F.S. is recorded and attachment of judgmentdebtors 2 and 3 is raised. The judgment debtor No.2, referred to in theproceedings of the executing Court, as above, is the petitioner herein.
3. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that in spite of fullsatisfaction memo having been filed by the decree holder, the attachment of petitioner’s salary is still continued and in spite ofpetitioner’s request, the second respondent has refused to take note of thefull satisfaction memo and recording by the Court, as above, but, on the contrary, has issued proceedings dated 19.09.2011 informing thepetitioner that no action can be taken for stopping the recovery until specificor separate order is received from the Court. Petitioner is, therefore, beforethis Court seeking direction against respondents 1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the third respondent confirms that the decree hasfully been satisfied; EP is closed and the attachment is raised. The same isaccordingly recorded in the docket proceedings of the executing Court, referred to above.
5. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 states that becausethe communication received from the petitioner was not clear, the letterdated 19.09.2011 was issued by the second respondent. But, if any,attachment is already raised and EP is closed, there is no impediment forstopping the deductions of the attached amount from the petitioner’s salary.
6. In view of that, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file aneat and authenticated copy of the proceedings of the executing Courtshowing that full satisfaction is recorded on behalf of the decree holder andattachment ordered in the EP is raised. If such document along with arepresentation of the petitioner is filed, the respondents 1 and 2 shall verify the same and act accordingly.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J