This appellate judgment quashes an order summoning the Managing Director of a chit fund company as a witness. The court held that summoning the MD would not serve any purpose, as the specific branch manager holds first-hand knowledge of the disputed transaction.
I.A. No. 769/2012 dismissed; 압송 order set aside; original O.P. (Civil) No. 3617/2012 allowed.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 3617 of 2012 (O)
OS.15/2012 of SUB COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONER(S):
SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR SRI.A.M.GOPALAN THROUGH SRI.K.RAJAN ASSISTANT ARREARS MANAGER SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P) LTD. KANNUR BRANCH.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.BABU SHANKAR SRI.VIPIN VISWAN
RESPONDENT(S):
RR1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RR1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN O.P.(C) NO.3617 OF 2012
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
O.P.(C) No. 3617 of 2012 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for realisation of money allegedly due under a kuri transaction. The defendants in their written statement conceded the receipt of notices dated 10.6.2002 and 28.2.2003 issued by the plaintiff. The execution of a sale deed (Document No.1397/01) dated 2.7.2001 by the predecessor-ininterest of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff is also not disputed.
O.P.(C) No.3617/2012
2
10.6.2002 and the execution of the sale deed dated 2.7.2001. It is under these circumstances has the court below permitted the defendants to summon the Managing Director of the plaintiff as a witness in the case.
O.P.(C) No.3617/2012
3
2.7.2001 is conceded by all parties. The only question to be probed is as to whether the same amounts to a settlement and the circumstances under which it was executed.
I set aside the impugned order and dismiss I.A.No.769/2012 in O.S.No.15/2012 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kannur. This will not preclude the defendants from summoning Mr.T.P.Sivanandan referred to above as a witness in the case to speak about the nature of the transaction thereunder.
The original petition is allowed. No costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant company can be compelled to summon its Managing Director as a witness regarding a branch transaction.
Whether summoning the Managing Director serves any earthly purpose given the existence of branch manager record.
SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD.
SMT. SUMITHRA
SRI. DEEPAK
SRI. ARUN
SMT. AMRITHA
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
