Allowed

Dr.Subhash P.M. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Kerala HC3 Apr 2009WP(C)/108/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction from the Court to compel the Greater Cochin Development Authority to execute a sale deed. The Court considered the dispute over sale consideration and past litigation, ultimately directing execution within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to execute a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Dr.Subhash P.M. Vs Greater Cochin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 108 of 2009(K)

PETITIONER(S):

DR.SUBHASH P.M., S/O.P.O.MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS, MIG-2, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.

¶10

MRS.SASI SUBHASH, W/O.DR.SUBHASH, MIG-2, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶12

RESPONDENT :

¶13

¶14

THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20.

¶15

ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,GREATER COCH FOR R1

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 108/ 2009

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 29/10/2002 IN O.S. NO.1924/2000.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DATED 30/11/2005 IN A.S. NO.60/2003.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/11/2007 IN R.S. A NO.973/2006. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/06/2008.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

scm

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) No. 108 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2009

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioners submit that the first petitioner was allotted Plot No. 2 under the M.I.G. Scheme of the GCDA. Subsequently, it was transferred to the second petitioner's name with the approval of the respondent.

¶31

There was a dispute as to whether sale consideration was paid in full. This dispute was the subject matter of O.S.No.1924/2000 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court Ernakulam. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by Exhibit p1 judgment. Appeal, SLP, and Review Petition filed by the GCDA were all dismissed confirming Exhibit P1 judgment. Therefore, as on date there cannot be any dispute regarding satisfaction of the sale consideration.

¶32

According to the petitioners, it was because of the on going litigation between the parties that execution of the sale deed got delayed. In this writ petition the prayer sought is to require the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner within a time frame.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 108/2009

¶34

¶35

Heard the standing counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent.

¶37

Although, the respondent accepts the facts that dispute between the petitioners and the respondent regarding the adequacy of the payments made, is concluded as per concurrent judgments referred to above, according to them, they are yet to receive confirmation from their Counsel regarding the dismissal of the Review Petition.

¶38

However Exhibit R1© produced by the respondent along with their counter affidavit itself shows that their counsel has informed them that the review petition has been dismissed. If that be so, there cannot be any justification for further delay, on the ground that confirmation from the counsel has not been received.

¶39

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to execute sale deed in favour of the second petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

scm

Dr.Subhash P.M. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Subhash P.M. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakumari.v.M. Vs Abdur Rasheed, Registrar, Kannur Univer

Karapara Estate Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Prema R.P Vs R.T.a., Palakkad

K.Mohammedkutty Vs Radhakrishnan.C.

Chacko Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mohammed Kunju Vs Shahul Hameed