Dismissed

Janco Dipped Products (P) Ltd. v. Development Commissioner

Kerala HC3 Jun 2008CRP/273/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an eviction order under the Public Premises Act. The revisionist claimed violation of natural justice and alleged legal error regarding the Government Grants Act. The High Court reviewed the District Court's order and found no illegality or irregularity warranting interference, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference.

Janco Dipped Products (P) Ltd. Vs Development… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 273 of 2004() --------------------CMA.967/2002 of V ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶4

REVISION PETITIONER: APPELLANT:

¶5

-------------------------------------------------------M/S.JANACO DIPPED PRODUCTS (P) LTD., PLOT NO.18, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 37. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. HARI G.NAIR.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

-------------------------1. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 37.

¶9

2. SRI.PAUL ANTONY, DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 37.

¶10

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

There is no representation for the Petitioner for the last so

¶14

many hearing dates. Hence CRP is dismissed for default.

¶15

5/02/2008

¶16

Sd/- M.N.Krishnan, Judge

¶17

/True Copy/

¶18

P.S.to Judge

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶20

C.R.P.No.273 of 2004

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd June, 2008.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of the District Court, Ernakulam, in C.M.A.No.967/02, which was an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short 'the Act'). An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner under Section 5(1) of the Act. Admittedly, petitioner was served with a notice stating that the company committed default in payment of rent to a sum of Rs.6.24 lakhs as on 6.11.2001. It was also stated that petitioner has caused nuisance to other units in the export Zone. Notice was received by the petitioner and a reply was sent denying the allegation. An order of eviction was passed on 7.6.2002. Order was challenged in the appeal. The learned District Judge considered the appeal on merit and passed a detailed order upholding the order of eviction. It is challenged in this revision petition.

¶24

CRP No.273/2004

¶25

¶26

The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of the learned District Judge is against natural justice, as records relied upon by the learned District Judge were handed over by the respondent to the court, and petitioner did not get an opportunity to go through the documents. It was also argued that even though an order of eviction was passed under the Act, learned District Judge considered it, in the light of the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1885, and, therefore, the order is illegal.

¶27

On going through the order of learned District Judge, I cannot agree with the submission. Learned District Judge has considered the appeal in terms of Section 9 of the Act. It was contended before the learned District Judge that petitioner is only an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question. Reliance was placed on Government Grants Act, 1885 to consider that question. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court, contentions raised by the respondents were upheld. Learned District Judge specifically found that petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the building in violation of the terms of the agreement. It is in such circumstances, appeal was dismissed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned

¶28

CRP No.273/2004

¶29

¶30

order warranting interference. Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶31

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶32

nj.

Janco Dipped Products (P) Ltd. v. Development Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janco Dipped Products (P) Ltd. v. Development Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaran Vs Jayachandran

Jimmy Joseph Vs Mary Dominic

K.S.E.B Vs Kalyani (Dead)

Sunil Alex Vs Santha

Karapoola Abdullakutty Vs K.Ramanunni Nair

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs K.Sreeraman, S/O.Krishna Iyer