Petitioner challenged steps to hold a general body meeting pending a suit for interim injunction. Court noted parties entered a mediation settlement; petition disposed citing respondents' assurance to postpone meeting until mediation completes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2292 of 2016 (O)
IA. 6584/2016 IN OS 1166/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF:
1. CHESS ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT M.KANNAN, S/O M.AIYYASWAMI, AGED:55 YEARS, CHESS TRAINER AND FIDE RATING CHESS PLAYER-(2052 INTERNATIONAL RATING), RESIDING AT KOTTAEKKAT HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA, KOCHI-683 101.
2. M. KANNAN, S/O M. AIYYASWAMI, AGED:55 YEARS, CHESS TRAINER AND FIDE RATING CHESS PLAYER-(2052 INTERNATIONAL RATING), RESIDING AT KOTTAEKKAT HOUSE,
ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA, KOCHI-683 101
3. SAJU MANJALY, S/O INASU, AGED:45 YEARS, SENIOR NATIONAL ARBITER (CHESS), RESIDING AT MANJALY HOUSE,
KANGHARAPPADY, KOCHI-682 021.
4. P.S. AMEER,
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN SRI.P.SAJU
msv/
-2-
-2-
OP(C).No. 2292 of 2016 (O)
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDENTS:
1. M.B.MUAREEDHARAN, S/O K.B.MENON, AGED:60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THACHETHU BHANU BHAVAN, ELOOR-SOUTH, P.O., UDYPGMANDAL, KOCHI-683 501.
2. P.M.LATHEEF, AGED:47 YEARS, BUSINESS, PATTARUMADOM, PLAMUDY, KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM-KOCHI-686 692
3. SUNIL KUMAR M.K., AGED:48 YEARS, BUSINESS, MANGARA HOUSE, P.GANGADHARAN ROAD, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-682 006.
4. RAVINDRAN C.R., S/O E.R.MENON, AGED:47 YEARS, CHESS TRAINER, PACHANVADI HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., KOCHI-682 306.
5. PLAITO V. WILLIAM, S/O V.J.WILLY, AGED:46 YEARS, BUSINESS, VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, PRAMOD ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682 012. BY ADVS. SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
OP(C).No. 2292 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
O.P.(C) No.2292 of 2016
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner directing the respondent to drop the general body meeting of the first petitioner as per Ext.P3 notice during the pendency of Ext.P1 suit and to maintain status quo by means of an appropriate writ or order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P.(C) No.2292 of 2016
2
According to the petitioners, the court below has not passed any interim order, but the respondents are taking steps to conduct the meeting and take necessary resolution and they issued Ext.P3 notice intending to conduct the meeting on 18.09.2016 and the notice was received by second respondent on 08.09.2016 at 3.00 p.m. Their attempt was to defeat the purpose of the suit. That prompted the petitioner to file this petition, seeking the above reliefs.
“Regarding reference 1 above, it is humbly submitted that I.A.No.6584/2016 in O.S.No.1166/2016 is posted for mediation report on 22.09.2016. It is further submitted that the matter was
O.P.(C) No.2292 of 2016
3
referred for mediation as per order dated 03.09.2016 and the parties were to appear for mediation on 05.09.2016. The mediation report has been received in this court after the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2016.
The mediation report shows that the parties settled the matter between them and also entered into a mediation agreement. Though the parties have affixed their signatures, the counsels for both parties have not signed in the mediation agreement.
If the mediation agreement is acceptable to the partis and their counsels also affixed their signature, the interlocutory application can be disposed of in terms of the memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties.
The matter is posted on 22.09.2016 for the mediation report. The respondents have not yet filed their objections in the I.A.No.6584/2016 since the matter was referred for mediation. If the mediation agreement is not acceptable to the parties then the matter will have to be heard on merits after the respondents file their objections. The application can be disposed on or before 15th of October, 2016.
The above facts are brought to your kind information which may kindly be placed before Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(C) No.2292/2016.”
O.P.(C) No.2292 of 2016
4
any injunction has been granted or not after hearing both sides. In this case, it is mentioned in the report that, the matter was referred for mediation directing the parties to appear before the mediation Centre on 05.09.2016 and a report has been received stating that it has been adjourned to 22.09.2016 and it is also seen from the interim report that parties have settled the matter between them and entered into a mediation settlement. Though the parties have affixed their signatures, the counsels have not signed the same. However the mediation agreement has not been posted before the court. It is also mentioned that the respondents have not filed their objection in I.A.6585/2016, since the matter has been referred for mediation. It is also mentioned that, if the mediation agreement is not acceptable to the parties, the matter will have to be heard on merits after the respondents filed their objections and the application can be disposed of on or before 15.10.2016.
Both the counsel submitted that the matter is now pending for mediation and posted to 03.10.2016 for further discussion. The counsel for the respondents also submitted that, the earlier meeting proposed to be conducted as per Ext.P3 notice has been cancelled on the basis of mediation settlement entered into between the parties. They have also submitted that they have no intention to conduct any meeting till the mediation process is completed and if the mediation
O.P.(C) No.2292 of 2016
5
process is not completed, they will co-operate with the court below in disposal of I.A.6584/2016. So in view of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent that the apprehension of the petitioner that they are going to conduct a meeting and remove the petitions illegally appears to be without any basis. So the petition is disposed of as follows:
If the mediation process is completed and the matter has not been settled between the parties in the mediation, then the 3rd Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam is directed to expedite disposal of I.A. 6584/2016 in O.S.1166/2016 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date getting the report from the mediation centre regarding the progress of mediation either settled or not settled. If the matter is not settled between the parties in the mediation, then court below is directed to pass appropriate order in the interlocutory application, after hearing both sides within the time mentioned above.
With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of.
Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
ss
Chess Association, Ernakulam
M.B.Muareedharan
P.M.Latheef
Sunil Kumar M.K.
Ravindran C.R.
Plaito V. William
K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
