Dismissed

Joji v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011WP(C)/23834/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of an agreement for slaughter tapping. The Court held that enforcement of contractual rights and termination for violations are matters for the parties, not suitable for proceedings under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Termination order upheld as a contractual matter not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Joji Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 23834 of 2011(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

JOJI,AGED 42,S/O.JOSE,NJARALEKATT HOUSE, RANDUKAI ,THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): -----------------------------

¶12

1. THE PLANTATIION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM,REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND THE GENERAL MANAGER PLANATATIION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM 691 001.

¶13

2. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA, ATHIRAPALLY ESTATE,KALADY PLANATATION,REP.BY ITS MANAGER, ATHIRAPALLY ESTATE KALADY PLANTATIION PO, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶14

3. AUGUSTHY,S/O.KUNJITHOMMAN,KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VETTIKUZHY,KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 680 001.

¶15

ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R1 SRI.BINU MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH FOR R1 SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) FOR R1

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC NO.23834/11

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5/12/2009 EXECUTED AMONG THE RESPONDENTS HERIN.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4/8/2010.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 22/6/2011.

¶23

EXTS OF R1

¶24

ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF TENDER NOTICE NO.PROD 1/II/2009 DT 23.3.2009.

¶25

ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSENOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPODNENT ON 18.8.2010.

¶26

ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DT 4.9.2010 TO ANNEXURE R1(b) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 11.10.2010 IN OS NO.503/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶28

ANNEXURE R1(e): TRE COPYOF ORDER DATED 3.11.2010 IN IA NO.2529/2010 IN OS NO.503/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM.

¶29

ANNEXURE R1(f): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.3.2011 IN O.S.NO.503/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23834 OF 2011

¶34

=====================

¶35

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2011

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner claims to be an agent of the 3^rd respondent who had entered into Ext.P1 agreement with respondents 1 and 2 for slaughter tapping of the rubber trees mentioned therein. The agreement was terminated by Ext.P3 and it is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶38

A statement has been filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, they had published Annexure R1 (a) notification inviting tender/auction for slaughter tapping of the rubber trees for a period of two years, and that, being the successful bidder, Ext.P1 agreement was executed between the parties. It is stated that against the conditions of the contact, when some of the workers of the contractors entered into other areas of the estate and unauthorisedly tapped the rubber tress, Annexure R1(b) show cause notice was issued, and that, in Ext.R1 (c), 3^rd respondent had admitted that the rights for slaughter tapping was assigned by him to third parties. This according to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent was against Clause 29 of the tender

¶39

WPC No. 23834/11

¶40

:2 :

¶41

conditions. At that stage, apprehending termination, 3^rd respondent has filed OS No.503/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam and had obtained ex parte order of injunction against respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that subsequently, Ext.R1(e) order was passed by the Trial Court vacating the interim order. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent got the suit dismissed as not pressed as per Ext.R1(f) judgment and that it was at that stage Ext.P3 order was issued by them terminating the contract in question. It is therefore contended that, it was in view of the admitted factual position that the 3^rd respondent has assigned his contractual rights to the third parties against the terms of the contract, that the agreement between the parties was terminated.

¶42

Evidently therefore, the relationship between the parties were regulated by the terms of the contract. On the materials available before respondents 1 and 2, they were satisfied that the 3^rd respondent had violated the terms of the contract and it was therefore that they invoked the contractual rights and terminated the contract. The enforcement of contractual rights and rights for violations thereof cannot be

¶43

WPC No. 23834/11

¶44

:3 :

¶45

subject matter of a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For that reason, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶46

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶48

Joji v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joji v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

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

Nafeesa Vs Anitha Rani

K.Rasheed Vs the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath

Shamsudeen Rawther Vs the District Collector,Kollam

Anisha P.R. Vs Biju

Al-Azhar College of Arts and Science Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Dr.Jess Raphael Vs the Executive Enginner