Allowed

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporat v. M/S.Surice Trading Pte. Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Sept 2012WA/960/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal allowed the State Corporation's appeal to set aside a dismissal of a review petition. The High Court directed the main writ petition to be heard afresh on merits before the Single Judge, finding prejudice was caused to the Corportion by its absence during the review hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for a fresh hearing on merits with directions to both parties.

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporat Vs M/S.Surice… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934

¶6

WA.No. 960 of 2011 ( ) IN WPC 27272/2009

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.27272/2009 DATED 14-03-2011

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

¶9

KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. LTD., CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM-691 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶11

KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,

¶12

CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KSCDC LTD. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶15

M/S. SURICE TRADING PTE. LTD., 101 CECIL STREET, 11-09, TONG ENG.BUILDING, SINGAPORE-, 069533, A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN SINGAPORE, REP.BY ITS AGENT, BHADRESH MEHTA, PARTNER M/S. BHADRESH, TRADING CORPORATION, 205, MAJESTIC SHOPPING CENTRE, 144JSS ROAD, GIRGAUM MUMBAI-400 004.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.S. BHARATHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2012, ALONG WITH WA. 1934/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

DSV/-

¶19

MANJULA CHELLUR (Ag.CJ) &

¶20

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal Nos.960 & 1934 of 2011

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Manjula Chellur, Ag.CJ

¶25

Writ Appeal No.1934 of 2011 is filed challenging the dismissal of Review Petition No.348/2011, wherein the review petitioner had sought review of the judgment in W.P. (c) No.27272 of 2009 on the following grounds:-

¶26

“ (A) There is apparent error on the face of the judgment under review since some of the material points raised by the review petitioner were omitted to be considered by this Hon'ble Court, which are ( a ) A second writ petition for the very same relief is not maintainable and they have to approach Civil Court for their reliefs. (para 18 of the counter affidavit) ( b ) There was Quality and quantity dispute in the transaction, which were not taken up in time due to callous inaction and moreover, they even prepared Ext.P13 proceedings in the clandestine deal. ( c ) Even though Exts.R1(b) to R1(i) were produced

¶27

Writ Appeal Nos.960 & 1934 of 2011

¶28

¶29

along with the counter affidavit based on which and all other documents, the present Board of Directors arrived at a suspicion of shady deal, which caused huge loss to public exchequer and passed Ext.R1(a) resolution requesting the Govt. of Kerala to enquire into the matter, this Hon'ble Court in para 9 held as follows:- “Although it is stated that the contract was shady and that an enquiry was ordered, apart from the bald averments nothing has been placed on record to substantiate these claims”. This was happened because Exts.R1(b) to R1(i) were omitted from the consideration of this Hon'ble Court.

¶30

B) The judgment under review was rendered without hearing the Standing Counsel or the Sr.Counsel engaged by the review petitioners as they were not aware of the posting of the case on 14.03.2011 because of the fact that no fresh list was issued except endorsing the list dated 11.03.2011 that the list will continue except item No.502 and 508 and also due to the fact that the same where not attached in the list available in the Internet.”

¶31

It is not in dispute that writ petition No.27272/2009 is

¶32

a second round litigation between the parties pertaining to

¶33

the same transaction, supply of raw cashew nuts to the appellant/Corporation. The main grievance in the review

¶34

Writ Appeal Nos.960 & 1934 of 2011 3

¶35

petition was the posting of the writ petition on 14.03.2011 was not within the knowledge of neither the instructing Counsel nor the Senior Counsel, as no fresh list was published except endorsing the list dated 11.03.2011 that the list will continue excluding Sl.Nos.502 and 508. It is further contended that the continuation of the list was not attached in the list available in the Internet. Therefore, the mistake happened on 20.03.2011 in not representing the appellant/Corporation, when the matter was taken up for disposal. The learned Judge, so far as review petition is concerned, has made the following order dated 02.06.2011 which reads as under:-

¶36

“This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(c)No.27272 of 2009. A reading of the grounds (A) and (B) of the review petition discloses that the contention therein were neither pleaded in the counter affidavit nor urged when the case was heard. That apart, the review petitioner's attempt is only to get the writ petition heard again, which exercise is not permissible.

¶37

In the result, the review petition is dismissed.”

¶38

¶39

Writ Appeal Nos.960 & 1934 of 2011

¶40

As a matter of fact, Ground B narrated above was the subsequent development after filing the counter affidavit in the writ petition by the Corporation. Therefore disclosure of this fact in the counter affidavit to the main writ petition would not arise. Even otherwise counter affidavit filed to the writ petition discloses several defences raised by the appellant/Corporation including question of limitation, jurisdiction etc.

¶41

In that view of the matter, when the appellant/corporation is dealing with the public money, they must be given opportunity to place their case before the learned Single Judge. No prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioner as the matter would be heard on merits and it is left to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits. Ground B could not have been mentioned in the counter affidavit. We are of the opinion, the matter has to be heard afresh, reviewing the judgment dated 14.03.2011. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. We make it clear that the

¶42

Writ Appeal Nos.960 & 1934 of 2011

¶43

¶44

respondent/petitioner is at liberty to seek early disposal of the matter before the learned Single Judge and we direct the appellant/Corporation to see that the matter is heard on merits and disposed of.

¶45

MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶47

sj 3/9

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporat v. M/S.Surice Trading Pte. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporat v. M/S.Surice Trading Pte. 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

State of Kerala Vs A.V Geetha Kumari

Dr.R.Reji Kumar Vs Rubber Board

M.Sabu Shabeer Vs the M.D.C. Bank Ltd.

Rajesh C. Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs M.S.Gopi

Sreekandan Nair Vs the Union of India