Disposed

Bharath.B v. P.K.Ananthanarayanan

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016FAO/60/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the High Court held that final observations in an application for temporary injunction do not affect the final result of the suit and shall not prevent the court below from disposing of the suit untrammelled by such observations. The court directed that the suit be disposed of within one year after service is complete and closed all pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Closed pending interlocutory applications and directed disposal of the suit within one year after service is complete.

Bharath.B Vs P.K.Ananthanarayanan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

FAO.No. 60 of 2016 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.3435/2013 IN OS. NO.401/2013OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 14.12.2015

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶10

BHARATH.B

¶11

S/O.P.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, B-11, SHRIVARI BRINDAVAN AVARAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-641006.

¶12

PARVATHY B. D/O.P.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, B-11, SHRIVARI BRINDAVAN AVARAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-641006

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY

¶14

SRI.H.S.VIVEKANANDA

¶15

SRI.FRANCO T.J.

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 6:

¶17

P.K.ANANTHANARAYANAN

¶18

S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, NARAYANA VIHAR VALIYAPADOM ROAD, EDAPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM KERALA-682025.

¶19

P.K.SHIVARAMAKRISHNAN S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, NARAYANA VIHAR VALIYAPADOM ROAD, EDAPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM

¶20

KERALA-682025.

¶21

P.K.NARAYANASWAMY S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, P.S.N.VILLA, GREEN GARDEN KARHAKA ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017.

¶22

P.K.RAMANATHAN S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, NO.9A, SKYLINE TOPAZ KALOOR KADAVANTHRA ROAD, COCHIN-682017.

¶23

P.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, G-203 SHRIRAM VIJAYA HYDE PARK, DURAISWAMY NAIDU LAYOUT BHARATHI COLONY, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE-641 004.

¶24

FAONO.60/2016

¶25

¶26

P.K.SANGAMESWARAN S/O.LATE P.N.KRISHNA IYER, PARVATHY MANDIR ELITE GARDENIA, PUZHAKKAL PO, THRISSUR-680 553.

¶27

R1,R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SENIOR ADVOCATE) R1,R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE

¶28

R1, R3 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILL

¶29

¶30

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2016, ALONG WITH FAO. NO.62/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

FAONO.60/2016

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2013 IN FAO NO.297/2013

¶35

ANNEXURE A2 - ORIGINALCOPY OF PRINT OUT OF DAILY STATUS FOR THE DATES 14.12.2015, 15.12.2015.16.12.2015AND 18.12.2015 OF OSNO.401/2013 IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶39

F.A.O.Nos.60 & 62 of 2016

¶40

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶41

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶42

Hariprasad, J.

¶43

Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.401 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, who approached the court below with an application under Order 39 Rules1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants from alienating/selling/altering any of the plaint schedule properties, including the present nature of the company business, pending disposal of the suit. All the respondents except the 5^th respondent, who is the appellant in F.A.O.No.62 of 2016, entered appearance and contested the matter. The learned trial Judge, relying on the materials placed before the court, dismissed the application for temporary injunction.

¶44

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, 5^th respondent in the application (appellant in F.A.O.No.62of 2016) and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/defendants.

¶45

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the

¶46

FAO Nos.60 & 62/2016 2

¶47

view that final conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. However, the anxiety of appellants is that the observations made in the impugned order may work out injustice to the plaintiffs at the time of trial of the suit. It is well settled that any observation in an application for temporary injunction will not have any bearing on the final result of the suit. However, by way of abundant caution, we make it clear that the observations in the impugned order will not affect the rights of parties and the court below shall dispose of the suit, untrammelled by any observations therein, as expeditiously as possible. It is also brought to our notice that the service is not complete in the suit. It is made clear that after completion of service, the matter shall be disposed of within a period of one year.

¶48

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

¶49

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶50

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶51

cks

Bharath.B v. P.K.Ananthanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath.B v. P.K.Ananthanarayanan

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

M/S.Transport Corporation of India Vs M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

K.S.E.Board Vs Elikutty Chacko

Social Welfare Centre Kuri Unit Vs Balan

Divya C.S. Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sreekantan Nair Vs Padmakumaran Nair