Disposed

Rajagopal.T v. Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd.

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016OP(C)/1210/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner to pay the decree amount over six months in equal instalments starting August 2016, conditional on a prior deposit of Rs. 50,000. Execution was kept in abeyance pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Allowed payment of remaining decree amount in six monthly instalments starting August 2016, conditional on a prior deposit of Rs. 50,000; execution kept in abeyance.

Rajagopal.T Vs Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1210 of 2016 (O)

¶6

IA.NO.81/2016 OF AR.NO. 69/2016 OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/IST RESPONDENT:

¶8

RAJAGOPAL T., S/O V.T.RAMANUJAM, KPM GARDENS, RAJGEETH, ERA-11, EMS NAGAR, KSHB COLONY, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶11

1. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 36-38A, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT FOURTH FLOOR, THADIKKARAN CENTRE,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, JOMET K.J., DEPUTY MANAGER, ERNAKULAM OFFICE OF M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.

¶12

2. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (IN THE DISPUTE KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD., T4, EMPIRE BUILDING, OPP. CENTRAL POLICE STATION, NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶14

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶15

SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

OP(C).No. 1210 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2016 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.69/2016. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.81/2016 IN EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR IN IA NO.81/2016 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.69/2016 DATED 1.3.2016. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(ARB)NO.479/2015 PENDING BEFORE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

K.HARILAL, J.

O.P.(C). No.1210 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is willing to settle the matter with the respondent by clearing off the entire liabilities in reasonable instalments and, as a condition precedent, this Court directed him to deposit Rs.50,000/- within three weeks and it was further extended and the petitioner deposited the said amount within the extended time. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that a reasonable time can be given to pay the decree amount by instalments.

¶32

In view of the above submission, the petitioner is given six months time to pay the remaining balance by six monthly instalments of equal amount, payable before 10^th of every month starting from the 10^th of

¶33

OP(C).1210/16 :2:

¶34

August 2016. In the event of default, the execution petition will be proceeded further to realise the amount in lump sum. On compliance of the above condition, the execution petition shall be kept in abeyance till the time provided to pay the 6^th instalment or the event of default, whichever is earlier. Further, the execution petition shall be posted to a day between 10^th and 15^th of every month so as to ascertain the payment.

¶35

This original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶37

okb.

¶38

(Continued at page ..... 3)

¶39

OP(C).1210/16 :3:

¶40

The following corrections are carried out in the judgment dated 30-06-2016 in OP(C) No.1210/2016:

¶41

(i) The 5^th line in paragraph 2 of the judgment starting from the expression “In the event of” onwards is corrected and substituted as follows:

¶42

“In the event of default, the 1^st respondent is allowed to proceed with the proceedings to take custody of the vehicle. On compliance of the above condition, all further proceedings to take custody of the vehicle shall be kept in abeyance till the time provided to pay the 6^th instalment or in the event of default, which is earlier.”

¶43

Vide order dated 18-10-2016 in R.P.No.675/2016 in O.P.(C) No.1210/2016:

¶44

(ii) The word “decree” occurring in the last sentence of 1^st paragraph of the judgment and the words “Further, the execution petition shall be posted to a day between 10^th and 15^th of every month so as to ascertain the payment” occurring as the last sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the judgment are deleted from the judgment.

¶45

Vide order dated 06-02-2017 in O.P.(C) No.1210/2016.

¶46

Registrar (Judicial)

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

okb

Rajagopal.T v. Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagopal.T v. Kotak Mahindra Prima 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

T.K.Suresh Vs Safiya

M.a.Nishad Vs M.a.Habeebulla

K.Jameela Beevi Vs Shijan James

Alli Vs Jayaraman

Asuma Beevi Vs T.K. Sreedharan

Mohanachandran Nair Vs Muthoot Vehiclle and Asset