IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36239 of 2009(O)
1. M/S. UNIVERSAL FOODS, ERAVIPUTUR KADAI,
... Petitioner
2. K. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPINATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :17/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.36239 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December 2009
----------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
i) Issue appropriate writ,direction or order
directing the respondent to give credit to the
amounts transferred from the firm’s current
account and S.B. Accounts to the CAN mobile
account No.ADV.10661.
ii) Issue appropriate writ, direction or order
prohibiting the respondent from taking further
steps consequent to the issue of arrest warrant in
E.P No.108/2007 in O.S No.193/2005 pending
before the Sub Court, Kollam.
iii) Issue appropriate writ, direction or order to
the respondent to recalculate the actual amount
due if any after hearing the petitioner.
2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P No.108
of 2007 in O.S No.193 of 2005 on the file of Sub court,
Kollam. The 1st petitioner is a firm and the 2nd petitioner is a
partner of that firm. 1st respondent bank is the decree
holder. A decree was passed in a suit for money on the
basis of a compromise entered by the parties over the suit
W.P.(C).No.36239 OF 2009 Page numbers
for recovery of money filed by the bank against the
petitioners in respect of a loan advanced. Since the terms
of the compromise were not honoured, the decree holder
proceeded for execution of the decree. In execution, the
petitioners/judgment debtors raised objection that some of
the amount credited by them towards the loan had not been
taken into account in fixing the liability, and without noticing
it, the compromise decree had been passed. The execution
court found no merit in such objections. Admittedly the
execution court has now ordered issue of warrant against
the 2nd petitioner to realise the decree debt. Now the writ
petition has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs
by the petitioners/judgment debtors invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondents have entered appearance
through their counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides.
From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and
circumstances presented, I find none of the reliefs
W.P.(C).No.36239 OF 2009 Page numbers
canvassed by the petitioners/judgment debtors can be
granted invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this
court. With eyes wide open the petitioners/judgment
debtors have entered into a compromise with the decree
holder bank and accordingly a compromise decree was
passed by the court. That compromise decree remains
unimpeached. Liability fixed under that compromise decree
disputing the quantum of amount therein advancing a case
that some entries made by the bank in its registers disclose
of further payments towards discharge of the loan raised by
the judgment debtors to resist the execution cannot be gone
into by the execution court as it is bound to execute the
decree and it cannot go behind the decree. There is no
merit in the writ petition, and it is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv