Dismissed
Tom Joseph & Others v. a.C.Shanthakumar & Others
Kerala HCAR/3/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933
AR.No. 3 of 2011()
-----------------------APPLICANTS:-
----------------------
1. TOM JOSEPH, AGED 44, S/O M.V.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT MALAYAMPURAM HOUSE, POONTHOPPE WARD, ALLEPPEY.
2. AJITH, AGED 45, S/O GOPIDAS, RESIDING AT SREEVIHAR, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA.
3. JOSE JOSEPH, AGED 43, S/O M.V.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT MALAPPURAM HOUSE, POONTHOPE WARD, ALLEPPEY.
4. RENJITH.G, S/O M.D.GOPIDAS, RESIDING AT SREEVIHAR, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA.
BY ADV. SMT.M.UMA DEVI
OPPOSITE PARTIES/RESPONDENTS:-
-------------------------- ---------------------------
1. A.C.SANTHA KUMAR, AGED 50, S/O A.R.CHENNAPPAN, RESIDING AT ADIYATTU HOUSE, C.M.C-5, CHERTHALA, ALEPPEY.
2. S.JOY, AGED 50, S/O G.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT JOY BHAVAN, PATTANAKAD, P.O.CHERTHALA.
3. A.C.VINODKUMAR, AGED 43, S/O A.R.CHENNAPPAN, RESIDING AT ADIYATTU HOUSE, C.M.C-5, CHERTHALA, ALEPPEY.
4. A.C.ROY, AGED 40, S/O A.R.CHENNAPPAN, RESIDING AT ADIYATTU HOUSE, C.M.C-5, CHERTHALA, ALEPPEY.
5. T.V.VINOD, AGED 37, S/O VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT NANDANAM, PUTHANAMBALAM SOUTH, MAYITHARA MARKET, P.O.CHERTHALA, ALEPPEY.
ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI FOR R1-5
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
smt
K.T.SANKARAN, J .
A.R.No. 3 OF 2011
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011
ORDER
On 24.5.2011 the following order was passed:
“It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the dispute between the parties have been settled. There is no appearance for the applicants. Post on 6.6.2011.”
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated that the dispute was settled between the parties.
The Arbitration Request is accordingly, dismissed for
default.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .
cms
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court