Muthoot Cine Enterprises v. L.Sathi
Case brief
What is this about?
The Writ Petition was dismissed for default as neither the petitioner nor the counsel appeared to argue the matter before the Court.
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 B.P.RAY
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/24TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 6500 of 2006 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
M/S.MUTHOOT CINE ENTERPRISES, KRIPA THEATRE, OVER BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. L.SATHI, SURESH BHAVAN, KESAVAN NAIR ROAD, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MAYA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.P.RAY, J.
W.P(C).No. 6500 of 2006
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2012
JUDGMENT
Neither counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner present.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE
vgs
M/S.MUTHOOT CINE ENTERPRISES
L.SATHI
THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
B.P.Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court