IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 36740 of 2010(N) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- JAYAKUMARI.R, D/O.INDIRAMMA, HOUSE NO.61, PUNNATHALA CENTRAL NAGAR, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM NOW WORKING AS U.D.CLERK, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI. K. SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH. P SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, PALLIMUKKU BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY SECRETARY, PIN-688 001. 3. SAVITHRY, KARIPPURATHU VAYALIL VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 36740 of 2010(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 9.11.2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE RECOVERY FROM SALARY. EXT.P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36740 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the guarantor of a loan availed by the third respondent from the first respondent bank. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 letter dated 17.9.2010 sent by the first respondent to the Secretary of the Alappuzha Municipality, where the petitioner is employed, to attach and pay the sum of Rs.3,000/- every month from the salary of the petitioner. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that though the monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.13,704/- , after deductions including the salary attached pursuant to the orders passed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam her take home pay is Rs.3,587/- and therefore if the attachment is effected, the petitioner will not be able to draw any amount by way of salary. It is also contended that, that attachment is in violation of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 25.1.2011, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the principal debtor, offered to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent. It is not disputed that the said payment has been made. Therefore WPC No.36740/2010 2 the liability of the principal debtor stands reduced. Ext.P1 salary certificate discloses that the petitioner's take home salary is only Rs.Rs.3,587/-. In such circumstances if a further sum of Rs.3,000/- is also deducted from her salary, she will not be able to draw any amount by way of salary. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should await the outcome of the arbitration case instituted by the bank before proceeding against the petitioner. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P2. It is clarified that this will not stand in the way of the first respondent from proceeding against the petitioner after the arbitration case is disposed of if under the award she is held liable to pay any amount to the first respondent bank. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps