The Mg.Partner, Muthuthavalathil Jewelle v. Sri.Dinesan & Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court recorded a compromise petition filed as an intervening application and subsequently closed the pending writ petition without delivering reasons or a substantive order.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was closed following the recording of a compromise petition.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015/17TH ASHADHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 11842 of 2008 (I)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
THE MANAGING PARTNER, MUTHUTHAVALATHIL JEWELLERY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. SRI.DINESAN, AURUVELIKUNNEL, KADUVAMOOZHI, THALAPPALAM KARAYIL, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
THE MANAGING PARTNER, MUTHUTHAVALATHIL JEWELLERY
- respondent
SRI. DINESAN
- respondent
SMT. AMMINI
- respondent
THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court