Allowed

Santhakumari v. Sho,Kannur & Another

Kerala HC11 Jan 2012WP(C)/466/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the illegal seizure of a stage carriage vehicle by the respondents during pending arbitration. The court directed the finance company to return the vehicle within a week, leaving contentions regarding the arbitration proceedings open for separate adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to return the vehicle to the petitioners within one week.

Santhakumari Vs Sho,Kannur & Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 466 of 2012 (G) =======================

¶6

PETITIONER(S) =============

¶7

1. SANTHAKUMARI.P.R., W/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, NISHANTH HOUSE, MAVILAYI P.O., MUNDALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 622.

¶8

2. VASANTHAN G., S/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, NISHANTH HOUSE, MAVILAYI P.O., MUNDALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 622.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR

¶10

SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) ===============

¶12

1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670 001.

¶13

2. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. 4TH FLOOR, HYPER CENTRE, NEW RAILWAY STATION ROAD, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.DASAN, PIN-670 141.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R2 BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C)NO.466/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 : THE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.20.10.2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P2 : THE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD.4.11.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P3 : THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD.21.11.2011.

¶23

EXT.P4 : THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.29.11.2011 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5 : THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD.29.11.2011 PROVING RECEIPT OF THE 2ND COMMUNICATION.

¶25

EXT.P6 : THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ARBITRATOR DTD.9.12.2011.

¶26

EXT.P7 : THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD.28.11.2011 SWORN BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P8(a)P8(b)AND P8(c): THE SUMMONS AND THE POSTAL COVER DTD.16.12.2011.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶34

W.P(C) No. 466 of 2012

¶35

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶36

Dated this, the 11^th day of January, 2012.

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioners purchased a stage carriage vehicle with finance from the 2^nd respondent. Arbitration proceedings are in progress in respect of disputes between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent. On the strength of an interim order by the Arbitrator, the 2^nd respondent has seized the vehicle allegedly with the assistance of the 1^st respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. They seek the following reliefs:

¶39

“i. Issue a declaration that the act of the 1^st respondent in seizing the vehicle bearing No. KL13/M3033 without the direction of a competent court is illegal.

¶40

ii. Issue a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to get the custody of the vehicle bearing KL13/M3033 which was illegally seized by the 1^st respondent.

¶41

iii. Writ of mandamus or other writ or directing the 2^nd respondent to hand over the possession of the vehicle bearing No. KL 13/M3033 forthwith to the petitioner.

¶42

iv. For a declaration that the arbitration proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P1 demand notice is unsustainable in law.”

¶43

The 2^nd respondent appears through counsel and

¶44

submits that they undertake to return the vehicle to the petitioner without prejudice to their remedies in the arbitration proceedings.

¶45

The same is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of

¶46

W.P(C) No. 466 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶47

with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to return the vehicle to the petitioners within one week.

¶48

The other contentions of the petitioner regarding the arbitration proceedings are left open to be agitated in appropriate other proceedings under law.

¶49

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶50

Tds/

Santhakumari v. Sho,Kannur & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumari v. Sho,Kannur & Another

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

M/S.Joseph Michael & Brothers and Anr. Vs K.B.Valsalakumari

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Banerji Memorial Club

Augusty Joseph & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

B. Anoopkumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kunjiraman Kumaran Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Aneesh.C.R. Vs the Ponnani Municipality