Dismissed

Noorudeen v. a.B.M.Civil Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016FAO/275/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of application for temporary prohibitory injunction and attachment before judgment. Court held no privity existed and appeal dismissed, requesting expeditious consideration of attachment application.

What did the court decide?

Damages for false injunction denied; attachment before judgment application directed to be considered expeditiously by trial court.

Noorudeen Vs a.B.M.Civil Ventures Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

FAO.No. 275 of 2015 () -----------------------

¶6

(AGAINST ORDER DATED 18.11.2015 IN I.A.NO.3774/15 IN O.S.NO.191/15 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, ERNAKULAM)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2:

¶8

1. NOORUDEEN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, OLAKKOTTU HOUSE, POOCHAMURI PARAMBU EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY DESOM-POST, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 006.

¶9

2. SYAM KUMAR V.J., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.JANI, HOUSE NO.23/1341, CHETTUPATTANIKARTHIL EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY DESOM-POST, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 006.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI.M.T.AJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4:

¶12

1. A.B.M.CIVIL VENTURES PVT. LTD. ABM TOWERS, P.O.BOX 2040, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE KADAVANTHRA DESOM, KOCHI, KANAYANNOOR TALUK PIN - 682 020, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR M.K.ABRAHAM.

¶13

2. M.K.ABRAHAM MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.B.M. CIVIL VENTURES PVT. LTD., ABM TOWERS, P.O.BOX 2040, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE KADAVANTHRA DESOM, KOCHI, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, PIN - 682 020.

¶14

FAO275/15

¶15

3. BINU ABRAHAM AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, A.B.M CIVIL VENTURES PVT.LTD ABM TOWERS, P.O.BOX 2040, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE KADAVANTHRA DESOM, KOCHI, KANAYANNOOR TALUK PIN - 682 020.

¶16

4. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IIM KOZHIKODE CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT, PIN - 673 570, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER(INFRASTRUCTURE).

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.VENUGOPAL (CAVEATOR) R4 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶18

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

jg-28/1

¶20

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶21

F.A.O. No.275 of 2015

¶22

.................................................................... Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶25

1.This appeal is filed against an order by which the court below dismissed an application for temporary prohibitory injunction. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

¶26

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶27

3.The two plaintiffs claim that they are essentially sub-contractors under defendant Nos.1 to 3. The fourth defendant, IIM, Kozhikode awarded a work to the first defendant of which, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the managing director and the authorised signatory respectively. The plea of the plaintiffs is that money is due on account of the work carried out by them as sub-contractors under defendant Nos.1 to 3. They have, therefore, sued defendant Nos.1 to 3 for money. Pending that

¶28

FAO275/15

¶29

-2-

¶30

suit, they sought for an order of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the fourth defendant, IIM, Kozhikode from disbursing amounts to defendant Nos.1 to 3. There is no privity of contract as between the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant. The plaintiffs do not have any legal right to claim any order restricting payment of money by the fourth defendant to defendant Nos.1 to 3 because liability to make payment is an obligation on the fourth defendant referable to the terms of a contract between defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the one hand and the fourth defendant on the other. All that the plaintiffs can insist is that the application for attachment before judgment stated to have been filed be considered by the court below, at the earliest. We see that the learned trial Judge was abundantly justified in holding that balance of convenience is in favour of refusing the order of temporary prohibitory injunction as sought for. We are also unable to see that a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs to sustain the claim for temporary prohibitory injunction.

¶31

FAO275/15

¶32

-3-

¶33

In the result, this appeal is dismissed recording the request of the appellants that the application for attachment before judgment pending before the court below be expeditiously considered. On production of a copy of this judgment, the court below will, sympathetically, consider that request of the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein.

¶34

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶35

(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)

¶36

jg-11/1

Noorudeen v. a.B.M.Civil Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorudeen v. a.B.M.Civil Ventures Pvt. 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

Padmaja B Vs Antony Chacko

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.George Jacob Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Ramakrishnan Vs the Ministry of Railways

Tdb, Rep. by Executive Engineer, Trivandrum Vs Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit

M.J.Xavy Vs the High Court of Kerala