Disposed

Unilever India Exports Ltd. v. the Estate Manager/Secretary

Kerala HC31 Jul 2015WP(C)/15367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Despite the procedure being impugned, the court granted four months for the petitioner to vacate the premises.

What did the court decide?

Granted four months to vacate; on expiry, petitioner to hand over possession or face dispossession with costs and liability solely on them.

Unilever India Exports Ltd. Vs the Estate Manager/Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2015/9TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 15367 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD., HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT BD SAWANT MARG CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST)MUMBAI 400099 AND HAVING THEIR BRANCH OFFICE AT MILNE ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682003, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED PERSON, R.ANANTHANARAYANAN.

¶8

BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.NELSON JOSEPH SRI.M.D.JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ESTATE MANAGER/SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND,

¶11

PORT TRUST BUILDING, COCHIN - 682003.

¶12

2. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND - 682003.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND - 682003.

¶14

4. UNION OF INDIA,

¶15

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING & TRANSPORT,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶17

TRASNSPORT BHAVAN I,

¶18

PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, SC

¶20

ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC

¶21

R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, A S G

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

mbr/

¶24

WP(C).No. 15367 of 2015 (U)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE DEED DATED 13/11/1973. P2:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30/4/2014.

¶28

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/5/2014.

¶29

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AND THE EXPORT PERFORMANCE FOR AUGUST 2014 AND NOVEMBER 2014 RELEASED BY THE COCHIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DATED 14/5/2014.

¶30

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4/9/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

P6:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

P7:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP 29830/2014 DATED 11/11/2014.

¶33

P8:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1960/2014. P9:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5251/2015. P10:TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

P11:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/4/2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

P12:TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17/4/2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ESTATE MANAGER.

¶36

P13:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 4 OF THE ACT BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶37

P14:TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER FOR TIME SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24/4/2015.

¶38

P15:TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/4/2015 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. P16:TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P17:TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18/5/2015.

¶39

--2--

¶40

--2--

¶41

WP(C).No. 15367 of 2015 (U)

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶43

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.EM5/LEASE RENEWAL/HUL/2010 DATED 24.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS AD CARD. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.EM11/98-B/RENEWAL OF LEASES/2011 DATED 21.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS AD CARD. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.EM5/C/L/2030/58/2014 DATED 3.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS AD CARD. ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF LIST OF SPACES ALONG WITH THE LIST OF TENDERERS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶48

===================== W.P.(C) No.15367 of 2015 - U

¶49

====================== Dated this the 31^st day of July, 2015

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

The above writ petition is filed against Ext.P17 order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The contention raised is that the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of

¶52

hearing, which is mandatory under Section 4 of the Act.

¶53

In view of the orders to be passed herein, this Court is of the opinion that this Court need not go in to the question

¶54

whether a hearing was granted or whether Ext.P17 should be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to participate in a tender by the Port Trust itself. However, the petitioner did not participate, since the premises, which was put in auction was not conducive for their business. The petitioner had also issued Ext.P11, in which they had undertaken that they would in fact vacate the premises if they were given six months time.

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C) No.15367 of 2015 - U

¶57

Even now the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶58

the petitioner submits that they would vacate the premises if granted six months. However, it is to be noticed that Ext.P11 itself was issued on 17.04.2015 and four months have elapsed from that date. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that an additional four months can be granted from today on which the petitioner undertake to vacate the premises.

¶59

In such circumstance, there would be a direction

¶60

that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises for a period of four months from today and on the expiry of the same, the petitioner would either hand over vacant possession on the plot to the Port Trust as provided in the lease agreement or the Port Trust would have the right to enter the premises and take it over, in which event the costs and liability would be solely that of the petitioner.

¶61

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶62

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶63

SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.

Unilever India Exports Ltd. v. the Estate Manager/Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unilever India Exports Ltd. v. the Estate Manager/Secretary

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

T.K. Mohanan Vs Abdul Kareem

Ambujakshy Prabhakaran Vs Chandra Gopi

Ranjan Vs K.Sarojini Amma

M.M.Shajahan Vs the District Collector, Kottayam

P.Raveendran Vs Ernakulam Regional Co-Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd.

Capt.Robin Chakalakal George Vs the Director General of Shipping