Dismissed

C.v.Ismail v. the Commonwealth Trust (India)

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012RP/907/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review petition seeking to revisit a previous writ judgment. The Court held that the underlying transaction was unrelated to the writ subject matter and no review was warranted. However, recording the respondent's undertaking to refund an advance of Rs. 2 lakhs within one month as a gesture of goodwill, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent undertook to refund Rs. 2 lakhs received as advance within one month.

C.v.Ismail Vs the Commonwealth Trust (India) — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 907 of 2011

¶6

¶7

WPC/5177/2005

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER)/PETITIONER IN IA.NO.14731/2006:

¶9

C.V.ISMAIL, S/O POCKER,

¶10

AGED 50 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHANDRAVEETTIL HOUSE NARAKKODE, KEEZHARIYUR.P.O.,QUILANDY CALICUT, DISTRICT, REP.BY P/A HOLDER MR.BABURAJ, S/O., NARAYANAN ADIYODI AGED 47, R/AT PARAMBATT HOUSE, MEPPAYUR POST, KOZHIKODE DT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶13

1. THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST (INDIA)

¶14

SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶16

2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶17

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PB.NO.1806

¶18

ERANJIPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶19

3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PB.NO.1806 ERANJIPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶20

4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,

¶21

OFFICE OF REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PB.NO.1806 ERANJIPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶22

5. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 60, SKYPARK BUILDING 7TH FLOOR, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI.

¶23

RP NO.907/11

¶24

-2-

¶25

6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 7. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPROATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ RAOD THRISSUR. 8. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., NADAKKAV WEST, CALICUT-673 011. 9. K.V.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 66 YEARS, SON OF LATE KUNHICHOYI, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI KOLLAM AT KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 10. A.K.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.A.K.AHMMED, PONNADATHAKANDI HOUSE, P.O.KARUVANPOIL (VIA) KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT. 11. CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.D2777, PUTHIY ARA KOZHIKODE, REP.BY, ITS SECRETARY. 12. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT TRAVEL AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY AND CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (KTDS) LTD., NO.2882. 13. GIRISH JOHN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.J.JOHN, RESIDING AT KUMBATTU VEEDU PUTHUPADI AMSOM, PADUR DESOM, P.O.KAITHAPOYIL KOZHIKODE. 14. SRI.B.BHASHEER, S/O.BEECHI KOYA, GREENERY HOUSE, KASHYAPADI, NELLUR POST KOZHIKODE. 15. HANEEFA, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA, ASMEE COTTAGE, PUNJAPPADOM, NEDUVATTOM P.O.NORTH BEPPUR. R2-R4 BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION

¶26

R2-R4 BY SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

¶27

R1 BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

¶28

R7 BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

¶29

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL

¶30

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-

¶31

2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

R.P.No.907/11 in WPC NO.5177/05

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶35

ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 12.8.11 IN OS NO.6 OF 2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, KOZHIKODE.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶40

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

¶41

R.P.No.907 OF 2011 in W.P.(C) NO. 5177 OF 2005

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2012

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

By this petition, review of the judgment in WP(C) No. 5177/05 is sought for. It appears that the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement with the 1^st respondent company for the sale of certain properties. The agreement provided that the sale is subject to the condition that this Court grants permission for the sale. The agreement also provided that in the event of sale not materialising, petitioner will be entitled to refund of `2 lakhs paid as advance. It appears that the review petitioner filed OS 6/2009 for specific performance of the agreement. By Annexure A judgment, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Court, mainly on the ground that in the absence of a permission granted by this Court, the agreement cannot be performed. It is pointing out the said judgment, this review petition has been filed.

¶46

First of all, the transaction between the review petitioner and the company was not in any manner connected with the subject matter of the writ petition and therefore the

¶47

R.P.No.907/11 in WP(C) No.5177/05

¶48

:2 :

¶49

judgment rendered by the Civil Court does not in any manner render the judgment in the writ petition erroneous warranting review thereof. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek appellate remedies before the appropriate court.

¶50

Be that as it may, having regard to the provisions of the agreement, the performance of which was sought for, the respondent was called upon to file an affidavit explaining its stand regarding its liability to refund the advance received. In pursuance thereof, a statement has been filed where in para 4, it has been stated thus;

¶51

“4 . It is further respectfully submitted that without prejudice to the right of this respondent flowing out of Annexure A judgment and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P(C) No.5177/05, this respondent as a gesture of goodwill is ready and willing to refund without any interest the amount of Rs.2 lakhs received from the review petitioner as advance.”

¶52

The aforesaid undertaking is recorded and it is also

¶53

R.P.No.907/11 in WP(C) No.5177/05

¶54

:3 :

¶55

undertaken that the amount will be refunded within one month.

¶56

Subject to recording the undertaking as above, the review

¶57

petition is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

//True Copy//

¶61

PA to Judge

C.v.Ismail v. the Commonwealth Trust (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Ismail v. the Commonwealth Trust (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Y.Peeyoos Vs Ashok Kumar Singh

Bijoy Vs M.M.Shoukkathali, Sub Registrar

A.George Vs H D F C Bank Ltd. and Another

K.Bharathan Vs C.T.Joju

Thomas Vs v.R.Mohanan Pillai& Anr.

Jaquilin Babu Francis Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.