The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking police protection for petitioners in a partnership firm dispute. The Court held that such internecine civil disputes are unsuitable for police intervention and must be adjudicated by the competent civil court.
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 R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 12490 of 2011(I)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------1. P.A.ANTHRU, S/O. ASSAINAR, MUTHUVASSERY HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.
2. M.S.KUNJUMUHAMMED, S/O. SAIDU, MUTHUVASERRY HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.
3. C.M.VEERAKUTTY, S/O. MEETHEIN, CHIRAPULI HOUSE, ASAMANNOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT(S):
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.
4. M.N.SAJEEV, S/O. NARAYANAN, MATTANAYIL HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.
5. MAYA SAJEEV, W/O. SAJEEV, MAKKANAYIL HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN, SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN, SMT.P.SUMITHRA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.12490/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD. 6.4.2011.
P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED. 6.4.2011.
P3:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 7.4.2011.
P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.4.2011.
P5:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15.4.2011 AT THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATION AT PERUMBAVOOR
P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.2011 TO THE PETITIONERS .
P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.4.2011 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
P8:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, TIN 32151378644 C DATED 30.11.2009 OF M/S. CITIZEN TIMBERS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE IST RESPONDENT DATED. 2.4.2011.
R4(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ALL KERALA PLYWOOD AND BLOCK BOARD MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION DATED. 23.4.2011.
R4(c):- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED TO THE IA. NO.2152/2011 IN THE ARBITRATION PETITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT BY PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION DATED. 27.4.2011.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
tss
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Basant, J:
Petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioners for the running of the business of three partnership firms. Petitioners along with respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 are partners in these firms. There is evidently disputes between the partners. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 are unnecessarily interfering with the affairs of the partnership. It is in these circumstances that police protection has ben claimed.
They contend that the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the partners. Under the provisions of the partnership deeds, parties have to resort to arbitration for resolution of disputes. Respondents 4 and 5 have already taken the necessary steps. An application under Section 9 of the
W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011
: 2 :
Arbitration and Conciliation Act has already been filed before the District Court, Ernakulam seeking directions relating to the running of the partnership. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that in these circumstances petitioners cannot be permitted to arm themselves with any order of police protection. There are serious disputes between the partners as to who are/were running the partnership business. At any rate, respondents 4 and 5 have already wanted the partnership to be dissolved. Notice to that effect has already been issued.
This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to make any
W.P.(C).NO.12490 OF 2011
: 3 :
opinion on merits about the dispute between the parties.
Sd/=
R. BASANT, JUDGE.
Sd/=
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
cl
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue directions under Article 226 for police protection regarding business disputes between partners.
Whether internecine civil disputes between partners warrant police protection or must be resolved by civil arbitration.
P.A.ANTHRU
M.S.KUNJUMUHAMMED
C.M.VEERAKUTTY
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL) ALUVA
R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
