Disposed

P.Sreekantan Nair v. City Corporation,Tvm.

Kerala HC8 Sept 2010RSA/1052/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a second appeal against the dismissal of a suit for injunction filed by a Milma booth operator against the City Corporation for lack of a licence, granting a three-month extension to vacate the booth upon compliance of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Extension of three months granted to the appellant to remove goods and vacate the booth subject to filing a written undertaking within three weeks.

P.Sreekantan Nair Vs City Corporation,Tvm. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932

¶5

RSA.NO. 1052 OF 2010()

¶6

---------------------{AS.114/2006 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM IN OS.413/2005 OF PRL.M.C., TRIVANDRUM}

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶8

¶9

P.SREEKANTAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, DEVI PRABHA, T.C.37/614, WEST FORT, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM RAJANI, T.C.36/479, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED

¶11

SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶13

¶14

CITY CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

---------------------------------------

¶18

R.S.A.No.1052 of 2010

¶19

--------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff is operating a Milma Booth at Thakaraparambu, within the limits of City Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. The defendant, the City Corporation, proceeded against the plaintiff since no licence was obtained for operating the booth. Plaintiff approached the court and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the operation of the booth, to enable him to run the booth smoothly.

¶22

The trial court dismissed the suit

¶23

which was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate court. Challenge in this appeal is against the concurrent decision so rendered by the courts below.

¶24

R.S.A.No.1052 of 2010

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

At the time of hearing on the

¶27

admississibility of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff sought for indulgence of the court to have some time to vacate from the building, submitting that the appellant is eking out his livelihood from the business operated in the booth. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in granting reasonable time, subject to an undertaking given by the appellant to remove his goods and vacate the booth, within the time extended by this court.

¶28

Considering the submissions made as

¶29

above, upholding the decree passed by the court below, a period of three months is granted to the appellant for removing his goods and vacating the booth, on condition of the appellant filing an undertaking in writing before the court below, within a period of three weeks from today, that

¶30

R.S.A.No.1052 of 2010

¶31

:: 3 ::

¶32

he shall unconditionally remove his goods and vacate the booth within three months from today. In the event of default by the appellant to furnish undertaking within three weeks, the period of extension will not be available to him. If undertaking is given as directed, and in the event of violation to surrender after the extended period, the Corporation can remove the unauthorised booth, in accordance with law.

¶33

Second appeal is disposed of as above.

¶34

sk/-

¶35

//true copy//

P.Sreekantan Nair v. City Corporation,Tvm.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sreekantan Nair v. City Corporation,Tvm.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Pradeep Kumar Vs Sree Pillayar Kovil Devaswom

C.Vijayalakshmi Vs C.Gopalakrishna Menon

Kuncha Vs K.Mani

Thomas Vs Thomas @ Joy

M.P.Thomas Vs Elizabath @ Bava and Others

T.M.Mathew Vs Hh Baselious Marthoma Didimos - I