Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Saseendraraj Vs Reshma — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

Home
Kerala HC
2016
Saseendraraj Vs ReshmaSaseendraraj v. Reshma

Dismissed

Saseendraraj v. Reshma

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016RP/624/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition seeking review of judgment regarding tribunal orders under Article 227 was dismissed as no error apparent on face of record.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

RP.No. 624 of 2016 ()

JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2016 IN OP (MAC) 152/2015.

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

SASINDRA RAJ K.,AGED 47, S/O.BABY ALIAS SARASWATHI, KALASAMKANDI HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERY VILLAGE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE.

BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

RESPONDENT(S):

1.RESHMA, 22 YEARS, W/O.LATE BAIJU, PURAKKATTIL HOUSE, VAVAD, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 572.

2.VAISALI (MINOR), D/O.LATE BAIJU, PURAKKATTIL HOUSE, VAVAD, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 572.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sasindra Raj K.
respondent
Reshma
respondent
Vaishali
respondent
Vaishnav
respondent
Malu

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 26 Jul 2016 · July
Registered: 25 Jul 2016
Case no.: RP/624/2016

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Shaji P.chaly

Sreedeviyamma Vs the Branch Manager
25 Jul 2016
Baby Sebastian Vs Dist.Collector, Kottayam
25 Jul 2016
Vijayabhaskar v. Vs Branch Manager
25 Jul 2016
Vakkayil Rahees Vs Joseph
26 Jul 2016

Cite this judgement

Saseendraraj v. Reshma, RP/624/2016 (KL), decided on 26 July 2016.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Shaji P. Chaly

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review petition filed to review judgment dismissing challenge to tribunal orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as petitioner's reliance on alleged error apparent on face of record was not tenable given earlier consideration of the fraudulent preference complaint.

A compact analysis

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.

3.VAISHNAV (MINOR),S/O.LATE BAIJU, PURAKKATTIL HOUSE, VAVAD, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 673 572, MINORS 2 AND 3 REP. BY MOTHER/ NEXT FRIEND RESHMA, W/O.LATE BIJU.

4.MALU, W/O.PRABHAKARAN 154 A KANDALAMMAL HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 572.

BY SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No. 624 of 2016

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of July, 2016

O R D E R

This Review Petition is filed seeking to

review the judgment passed by this Court in O.P. (MAC) No.152 of 2015 dated 12.07.2016, by which it

is held that Exts.P5 and P7 orders passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Now this review is filed by the petitioner, contending that there is an error apparent on the

face of the record, which is liable to be

reviewed. The contention raised in the Review Petition is that this Court without digesting the fraudulent preference pointed out by the petitioner

has passed the judgment. According to the petitioner, fraudulent preference complaint have two limbs namely; as regards which of the assets of the

R.P. No. 624 of 2016

petitioner and as regards the avoidance of the killer driver. On perusal of the judgment rendered by this Court, it is clear that the said point raised by the petitioner was considered by this Court and ultimately entered the finding that there are no circumstances warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, enabling this Court to review the judgment passed earlier.

This Review Petition fails, accordingly the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

Coram

AI extract

Shaji P. Chaly

CNR

KLHC010413952016

Bench

Disposal

DISMISSED

E.A. Ouseph Vs Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank

26 Jul 2016

The Kerala State Co-Op.Employees Pension Vs M.K.Santha

26 Jul 2016