Review petition dismissed on the ground that the petitioner's resignation was unconditional and not contingent on the payment of compensation, thus no review warranted.
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RP.No. 943 of 2016 (V) IN WP(C).28974/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28974/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-10-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND ADDL RESPONDENT.:
MRS.NEENA R. NAIR
D/O. P. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, DOOR NO. TC-50/27 PADAKASALA, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.NIDHEESH
SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
SMT.P.SREESHA
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER /1ST RESPONDENT.:
1. ENNAR BUSINESS CONSULTANTS DOOR NO. 15/538, ROOM NO. 11 ELEYAPURAKKAL APARTMENTS, NEAR CANAL SHOP, KARINGARAPULLY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE PARTNER REEJA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. C. RAGHAVAN, PIN- 678 559.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER S,T.K.R.DEEPA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 943 of 2016 (V) IN WP(C).28974/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.205 OF 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
R.P.No.943 of 2016
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2016
ORDER
The review petitioner is the second additional respondent in the writ petition. The first respondent filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Registrar of Firms. The writ petition was disposed of setting aside the order passed by the Registrar refusing to register the reconstitution of the partnership firm after the resignation of the review petitioner. Now, this review petition is filed by the petitioner contending that, the review petitioner has submitted an additional resignation stating that, if the compensation fixed by the Mediator is paid, the petitioner is ready to resign from the firm. However, the other partners failed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioner and hence, resignation does not come into force. It is also stated, on 8.2.2016, O.S.No.205/2016 was filed by the firm against the review petitioner before the Munsiff's
R.P.No.943 of 2016
2
Court, Palakkad and the same is still pending. Petitioner in the writ petition has suppressed all these facts and the writ petition is filed. These are the background facts persuaded the petitioner to file this review petition before this Court.
R.P.No.943 of 2016
3
“The agreement taken in this meeting is legally binding as the agreement has come into force that day itself as you have taken action on one of the decisions that day itself by paying salary arrears to Mr.Sunil Kumar.
I hereby offer my resignation from the partnership of Ennar Business Consultants. So please treat this as my resignation letter and relieve me urgently from the partnership as per the terms and conditions taken in the meeting on 01.9.2014 by the arbitrator and also in the deedo f release you have send me through arbitrator. Also I would like to state very clearly that I will not be responsible for any acts of the company from now onwards.”
R.P.No.943 of 2016
4
of the review petitioner was not on the basis of any conditions entered into by and between the parties. Therefore, I do not find any reason to review the judgment since there is no error apparent on the face of the record or other vital legal infirmities warranting this Court to exercise the power of review.
Review petition is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that the liberty of the review petitioner to make any claim against the existing partners is left open as per the judgment itself.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE
dlk/7/12/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the resignation of the review petitioner was conditional or absolute.
Neena R. Nair
Ennar Business Consultants
The Registrar of Firms
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
