Disposed

The Cannanore District Co-Operative Bank Employees Union. v. M.K. Syamlal

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016OP(C)/2242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the lower court's dismissal of an application for advance hearing via a writ petition. The Court held the challenged order was inconsequential but directed the Munsiff Court to expedite the disposal of the pending interim injunction application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Munsiff Court, Kannur to dispose of I.A No.5379 of 2016 in O.S No.370 of 2016 within three weeks.

The Cannanore District Co-Operative Bank Employees… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2242 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS NO.370/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. THE CANNANORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION,

¶9

REGD. NO.13: 23/90, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KANNUR 670 611.

¶10

2. E. BABU, S/O ANANDAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SHROFF RESIDING AT ANANDA BHAVAN, MAMBA KANNUR, VICE PRESIDENT CANNANORE DISTRICT CO-0PERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, KANNUR-670 611.

¶11

3. K.P. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O KUNHAMBU, AGED 45 YEARS, CLERK RESIDING AT PRADEEPAM, KAKKARA, THALIPARAMBA, VICE PRESIDENT CANNANORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, KANNUR-670 611.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. M.K. SYAMLAL, S/O SANTHA AGED 48 YEARS, PRO, SREE RAGAM, THAYINERI, P.O.PAYYANNUR, PIN-670 307, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

2. A.K. SATHEESAN, S/O KELU PANIKKER, AGED 49 YEARS, SHROFF, ADIYODIKANDY HOUSE, EDAYANNUR, P.O. THALASSERY -670 595, KANNUR DISTRICT.

msv/

-2-

-2-

OP(C).No. 2242 of 2016 (O)

¶20

3. C. ABDUL NAZIR, S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 45 YEARS, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, FAFIYAL MANZIL, PORT ROAD, AZHIKODE P.O, PIN-670 009. KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶21

4. C.K. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, EMPLOYEES, RESIDING AT SHABANAM NEAR GHSS, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 655.

¶22

5. SOORAND RAJASEKHARAN, S/O RAGHAVA PILLAI, POLITICIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KARAMCODE P.O., CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM,PIN-691 579.

¶23

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶24

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

msv/

¶26

OP(C).No. 2242 of 2016 (O)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.370/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT KANNUR.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.8.2016.

¶31

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.6063/2016.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4 CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.6063/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT KANNUR.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

======================== O.P.(C) No.2242 of 2016

¶40

==========================

¶41

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging

¶44

Ext.P4 order passed by the Munsiff, Kannur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners filed Ext.P1 suit as O.S No.370 of 2016 against the respondents seeking declaration and consequential reliefs. The petitioner also filed I.A No.5379 of 2016 for interim injunction. But court below had only ordered notice and posted the case to 26.08.2016. On 26.08.2016, respondents 1 to 3 appeared and notice to R4 and 5 were not returned and the suit was posted to 19.09.2016. On 05.08.2016, first petitioner received a letter from 4^th respondent alleging that an ad hoc committee consisting of respondents 1 to 3 was appointed by All Kerala District Co-Operative Employees Congress to administrate the affairs of the trade union and Ext.P2 notice was issued by the Convener for convening the meeting. So, the petitioner filed I.A No.6063 of 2016 to advance the hearing

¶46

O.P.(C) No.2242/ 2016

¶47

¶48

from 19.09.2016 to a near date and that petition was dismissed by the court below. Dissatisfied with the same the present petition has been filed.

¶49

Notice sent to 5^th respondent has been returned with endorsement ' family members refused to receive notice'. So it is declared as proper service on him. Notice sent to 4^th respondent has been returned with endorsement ' house locked'. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court feels that notice to 4^th respondent can be dispensed with as respondents 1 to 3 are the contesting defendants in the case.

¶50

When the petition came up for hearing today, counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the application for advance hearing has been dismissed by the court below, on 19.09.2016, the application was partly heard and the application is now posted today for further hearing. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be satisfied if a direction is given to the court below to dispose of the application within a time frame.

¶51

O.P.(C) No.2242/ 2016

¶52

¶53

In view of the fact that the application has already

¶54

been taken for hearing by the court below, order under challenge has become inconsequential. However, considering the fact that the petitioner wants a speedy disposal of the injunction application by the court below, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of by directing the Munsiff, Kannur to dispose of I.A No.5379 of 2016 in O.S No.370 of 2016 in a time bound manner. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶55

Munsiff, Kannur is directed to expedite disposal of I.A No.5379 of 2016 in O.S No.370 of 2016 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from today.

¶56

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court by phone followed by fax so that the court below can expedite disposal of the case and comply with the direction of this court.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

K.RAMAKRISHNAN , JUDGE

¶59

vdv/28/09/16

The Cannanore District Co-Operative Bank Employees Union. v. M.K. Syamlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cannanore District Co-Operative Bank Employees Union. v. M.K. Syamlal

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

Pankajakshy Vs Sukumaran

A.D.Narayanan Namboothiri Vs the Compettent Authority

Mathew C. Thomas Vs Mathew C. Joseph

Jayesh Thampan Vs Rajesh Kumar

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs Thomas T.George

Renjeesh Vs Boyce Rubber Estate Pvt.Ltd