Disposed

M/S.Malayalam Communications Ltd. v. M/S.Opm Dream Mill Cinemas and Entertainment Ltd.

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016OP(C)/212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging an order of conditional attachment was disposed of. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 45 lakhs to satisfy the security condition. Upon doing so, the court will pass appropriate orders including release of attachment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 45 lakhs; subsequent applications for release of attachment to be considered if guarantee is furnished.

M/S.Malayalam Communications Ltd. Vs M/S.Opm Dream Mill Cinemas… — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 212 of 2016 (O)

¶6

-------------------------OP(ARB). NO.758/2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

M/S. MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (PROGRAMMES) SOMAKUMAR, S/O BALAKRISHNAN K., AGED 50 YEARS, KAIRRALI TOWERS, ASAN SQUARE, PALAYAM UNIVERSITY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶9

BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN, SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH, SRI.SAJU.S.A, SMT.MEENA.A., SRI.K.C.KIRAN, SRI.M.DEVESH, SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

M/S. OPM DREAM MILL CINEMAS AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, DIA BUILDING, NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR, SANTHOSH T.KURUVILA, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KURUVILA VARKEY, 901 HOYSALA, E-HOME, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.SANIL JOSE, SRI.EBIN MATHEW.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

OP(C).No. 212 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OP(ARB) 758/2015 OF DISTRICT COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 16.12.2015.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2014.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF ATTACHMENT ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULE DATED 16.12.2015.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.01.2016.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: THE ORDER OF CONDITIONAL ATTACHMENT PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23.12.2015.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

O.P.(C).No.212 of 2016

¶29

....................................................... Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that the respondent herein filed OP(Arb.)No.758/2015 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and along with that, on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement for claiming interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, they filed Ext.P3 application for interim attachment. The petitioner filed objection to the same. The court below passed Ext.P5 conditional attachment directing the petitioner to furnish security for Rs.45 lakhs on or before 8.2.2016 and if it is not furnished, attach the property. This order is being challenged by the petitioner.

¶33

When the petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish bank guarantee instead of furnishing property security, so that the property can be realised from attachment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for the same. If the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.45 lakhs as directed by the court below in Ext.P5, then the court below is directed to consider that bank guarantee and pass

¶34

O.P.(C).No.212 of 2016

¶35

¶36

appropriate orders in IA.No.3961/2015 pending before that court and if any applications have been filed along with sufficient bank guarantee as security for releasing attachment, that also can be considered by the court.

¶37

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶40

M/S.Malayalam Communications Ltd. v. M/S.Opm Dream Mill Cinemas and Entertainment Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Malayalam Communications Ltd. v. M/S.Opm Dream Mill Cinemas and Entertainment Ltd.

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

K.J.Maria Lilly Vs Yogakshemam Kuries and Loans Ltd.

Karl Heinz Damschen Vs Joseph Anandkumar

Johnson Vs Mohammed Shafeeq a

Rekha Vs Vijayakrishnan V.K.S

Christy Jose Vs O.T. Mathewkutty

Asuma Beevi Vs Sajina