Dismissed

M/Slaxmi Starch Ltd. v. the Secretary Kundara Factory Workers

Kerala HC12 Jan 2012RP/919/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a review petition filed by an official liquidator against an earlier order dismissing a writ petition due to lack of sanction under Section 457 of the Companies Act. The Court held subsequent sanction on its own does not justify review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to file fresh writ petition with sanction.

M/Slaxmi Starch Ltd. Vs the Secretary Kundara Factory… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/22ND POUSHA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 919 of 2011

¶6

[O.P. NO.38566/2001 DTD. 25/05/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT]

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

M/S.LAXMI STARCH LIMITED, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR MR.K.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, (NOW SRI N.KRISHNA MURTHY)

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY, KUNDARA FACTORY WORKERS UNION CONGRESS (UTUC), H.O KUNDARA, KOLLAM -691 501.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, KUNDARA LAXMI STARCH EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU) H.O CHARUMMOODU, VELLIMON P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 511.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, KUNDARA STARCH FACTORY WORKERS UNION, ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC), H.O CHERUMMOODU, KUNDARA P.O. 691501.

¶14

4. THE VICE PRESIDENT, LAXMI STARCH FACTORY WORKERS CONGRESS, INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC) VELLIMON P.O. KUNDARA 695 003.

¶15

5. SRI.K.P.KOSALA RAMADAS, PRESIDENT, ALL KERLA STARCH & STAFF WORKERS UNION, NANTHENCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶16

6. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶17

R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH. ADV. SRI. K.S. MADHUSOODANAN.

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Prv.

¶20

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.919 of 2011

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This review petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No.38566/2001 seeking review of my judgment dated 25.5.2007 in that O.P. The said judgment reads as follows:

¶25

“When this writ petition came up for hearing on 13.03.2007 I passed the following order:-

¶26

“When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection that the official liquidator of the petitioner company could not have filed this original petition without obtaining sanction from the company court under section 457 of the Company's Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to get instructions as to whether the official liquidator has so obtained permission of the company court to file this original petition”.

¶27

The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy that the Official Liquidator has obtained permission of the company court to file this original petition, without which the petitioner could not filed this original petition. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.”

¶28

The petitioner's contention now is that subsequent to

¶29

the judgment, the petitioner obtained sanction from the Company Court under Section 457 of the Companies Act. Therefore, the judgment should be reviewed and the original petition should be entertained, is the contention.

¶30

R.P. No.919 of 2011

¶31

-2-

¶32

The petitioner also submits that in W.A. No.1171/2008, the Division Bench opined that the course open to the petitioner is to file a review petition before the Single Judge for vacating the judgment and for entertaining the writ petition.

¶33

The review petition can be entertained only if the judgment is wrong in some manner. At the time when the judgment was pronounced the judgment was perfectly correct. As such, I do not think that on account of subsequent sanction from the Company Court, I can review

¶34

my judgment, since review can be only on the basis of grounds available for the petitioner for review. I do not find any grounds for the petitioner for seeking review of my judgment. Even otherwise according to me, the remedy of the petitioner is to file another writ petition on the same cause of action on the basis of the sanction subsequently given by the company court. Without prejudice to that right, this review petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶36

shg/

M/Slaxmi Starch Ltd. v. the Secretary Kundara Factory Workers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/Slaxmi Starch Ltd. v. the Secretary Kundara Factory Workers

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

B. Anoopkumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Santhakumari Vs Sho,Kannur & Another

Kunjiraman Kumaran Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

K.D.Devassia Vs State of Kerala

M.Vinoth and Others Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board & Ano

M/S,Jagapati Breeders Ltd. Vs Canara Bank