Review petitioner sought modification of a writ court judgment. Court clarified that a settlement undertaking did not amount to relinquishing the right to appeal the MACT award. Petition dismissed with said clarification.
Review petition dismissed subject to clarification that undertaking did not waive right to appeal MACT award.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937
RP.NO. 476 OF 2015 (P) IN WP(C).4945/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4945/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-03-2015
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:
T.P VIJAYA BHASKAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR
MANOLOKAM GROUP PUBLISHING PVT.LTD., KMA BUILDING PUTHIYA ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS:
S/O. PAILY, MADAVAN HOUSE, CANAL ROAD BRAHMAPURAM P.O., AMBALAMUGAL DESOM PUTHENKURIZHU VILLAGE-682303
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE-1.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY.A BY SRI.P.M.JOSHI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. R.P.No.476 of 2015
in W.P.(C).No.4945 of 2015
............................................................. Dated this the 9th day of June, 2015
O R D E R
The review petition is taken up for hearing. On a consideration of the averments in the review petition, I am of the view that the judgment under review does not require any modification, save to the extent of clarifying that the submission of learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (the review petitioner herein) to the effect that, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition was ready to settle the dues of the petitioner in two equal successive monthly instalments, referred only to the undertaking on behalf of the 2nd respondent that, he would pay the dues to the petitioner in two equal successive monthly instalments and did not amount to a relinquishment of his right to challenge the correctness of the award of the MACT in further proceedings by way of appeal before this Court. Save for this clarification, the directions in the judgment under review are not interfered with and the review petition is dismissed subject to the aforenoted clarification.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns
T.P VIJAYA BHASKAR
MANOLOKAM GROUP PUBLISHING PVT.LTD.
JOY M.P
DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
