Dismissed

Sharlej v. Geetha Krishnan

Kerala HC15 Nov 2017OP(C)/1199/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the petitioner's original petition seeking to put on hold the delivery of auction-sold property arising from insolvency proceedings. The court held the petition was misconceived because the specific prayer regarding delivery could and should have been raised in the pending appeal against the same order refusing to set aside the sale.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner's original petition dismissed without costs.

Sharlej Vs Geetha Krishnan — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶6

OP(C).No. 1199 of 2014 (O)

¶7

--------------------------IP.NO.3/1996 AND IP.NO. 1/1997 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

SHARLEJ, S/O.SURESAN, AGED 41 YEARS, WRITERS CHALLA, NANDIYODE, VANDITHAVALAM, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. GEETHA KRISHNAN, S/O.K. SAHADEVAN,AGED 54 YEARS, CHORRAKODE, PERUVAMBU POST, PALAKKAD.

¶13

2. A.K. SREENIVASAN, S/O.LATE KELUKUTTY, THEKKEDESOM,ARANDAPALLAYAM, NALLEPPILLY,

¶14

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

3. A.S SRIHARI, A.K.SREENIVASAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THEKKEDESOM, ARANDAPALLAYAM,NALLEPILLY,

¶16

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

*4. K.SAHADEVAN, S/O.C.KRISHNAN,AGED 80 YEARS,

¶18

CHATTIYODEKALAM, PATTANCHERRY P.O, CHITTUR TALUK. (DIED)

¶19

5. SUKUMARAN, S/O.K.SAHADEVAN,AGED 80 YEARS, CHATTIYODEKALAM,PATTANCHERRY P.O,CHITTUR TALUK.

¶20

6. RAJANANDA, W/O.SURESAN, AGED 59 YEARS, WRITERS CHALLA,NANDIKODE, VANDITHAVAM,

¶21

CHITTUR TALUK.

¶22

7. ASHU SIVARAJ,S/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MALANKADU,VALLAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK.

¶23

2/-

¶24

-2-

¶25

OP(C).No. 1199 of 2014 (O)

¶26

8. MANIKANDAN, S/O.CHAMI,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, VALLATHAPULLI,THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OF CHITTUR TALUK.

¶27

9. JAGADHEESHKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, MAMATHA SADAN,VALMUTTY,CHITTUR.

¶28

10. P.C.MUKUNDAN,

¶29

S/O.CHAMIYAR, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSE, NO 6/279,PIRIVUSALA,KODUMBU VILLAGE,

¶30

KARINGARAPULLY AMSOM OF PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶31

11. DOLPHIN ENTERPRISES, 14/198, KAIMANDAPAM,PALAKKAD,

¶32

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SREELATHA MUKUNDAN.

¶33

12. APPUKUTTY, S/O.LATE THEETHU, MELAKAVARTHODE,NANDIYODE P.O, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶34

13. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE THEETHU, SASTHA OIL MILL,PAATTIKULAM,NANDIYODE P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶35

*RESPONDENTS 1 AND 5 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FOURTH RESPONDENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 10/10/17

¶36

R1 BY ADV.S SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶37

SRI.LIJU. M.P R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM R6 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE R7 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY R12 & R13 BY ADVS. SRI.C.G.SUNIL SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH

¶38

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

sts

¶40

OP(C).No. 1199 of 2014 (O)

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.P 3/1996 AND I.P 1/1997 DT. 12-04-2006 OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE IN I.P NO.3/1996 & 1/97 DT 17-06-2009

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.2169/99 DATED 29-07-1999

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(C) NO.397/14 DT 10-02-2014

¶47

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶48

EXHIBIT R12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.811/2011 OF CHITTOOR SRO

¶49

EXHIBIT R12(B) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3077/1996

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.N. RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ

¶54

- - - - O.P.(C). No. 1199 of 2014

¶55

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2017

¶56

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶59

The petitioner in this original petition prays that the Sub Court, Palakkad be directed to “put on hold” the delivery of property sold in auction consequent to the decree passed in I.P.No.3 of 1996 and I.P.No.1 of 1997 till disposal of F.A.O.No.113 of 2011.

¶60

The cause that has compelled the petitioner to file this original petition appears to be that he has suffered two orders in I.P.No.3 of 1996 and I.P.No.1 of 1997 by the Sub Court Palakkad, wherein he had been declared insolvent at the instance of the creditors, and that certain properties were brought to sale.

¶61

We notice from the records of F.A.O.No.113 of 2011, which is connected with this original petition that the said appeal has been filed against the order passed by the court below refusing to set aside the very same sale. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since the petitioner has already

¶62

O.P.(C). No.1199 of 2014

¶63

-2-

¶64

challenged the sale itself in F.A.No.113 of 2011, this original petition filed to “put on hold” the delivery of property sold by the court is not maintainable and is completely misconceived. We

¶65

are certain that any such order ought to have been asked for by the petitioner in his appeal, namely, F.A.O.No.113 of 2011

¶66

in such circumstances, we find no merit in this original petition and we, therefore, dismiss it however, without costs.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶69

sd/-

¶70

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶71

Sharlej v. Geetha Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharlej v. Geetha Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Chandy Vs the State of Kerala

Gracy Vs Jijo Joseph

The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs N.Vijayan

Narayana Das Vs V.U. Prakasan

Ramesan V.C. Vs Abdul Majeed P.M.