Review petition allowed to correct factual error in impugned judgment. Court substituted text clarifying that permission relates to taking vehicle custody, not final execution, as no award had been passed.
Correction of judgment text to clarify condition as permission to take custody of vehicle kept in abeyance.
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.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938 RP.No. 675 of 2016 (O) IN OP(C).1210/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1210/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-06-2016.
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
T. RAJAGOPAL., S/O.V.T.RAMANUJAM, KPM GARDENS, RAJGEETH,ERA-11, EMS NAGAR,KSHB COLONY, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMA 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.
2. THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL, (IN THE DISPUTE KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD, T4, EMPIRE BUILDING, OPP. CENTRAL POLICE STATION, NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. HASHIR.K.M.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
-----------------------------------------------------R.P. No. 675 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of October, 2016
ORDER
The review petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1210/2016. The petitioner submits that by the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed, the petitioner is directed to pay the remaining balance amount claimed by the 1st respondent in six equal monthly instalments and in the event of default, permitted the Execution Court to proceed further to realise the amount in lump sum. It is further directed that the Execution Petition shall be kept in abeyance till the time provided to pay the sixth instalment.
R.P. No. 675 of 2016 -: 2 :-
or permission to continue execution proceedings is factually incorrect. Thus, the review petition is filed, in the above circumstance, seeking correction of the error apparent on the face of the record.
R.P. No. 675 of 2016
-: 3 :-
from the expression “In the event of” onwards of the impugned judgment will stand substituted as follows:
“In the event of default, the 1st 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 6th instalment or in the event of default, whichever is earlier.”
The Review Petition is allowed to the above extent. The Registry is directed to issue judgment afresh accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment under review contained an error of fact regarding pendency of execution proceedings warranting correction.
T. RAJAGOPAL
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMA LTD
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
K HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
