Disposed

Media Systems India Soft Solutions Private Limited v. N M Ali

Kerala HC4 Jan 2017OP(C)/9/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining construction methods. The court held the petitioner must file a counter for variation but directed disposal by the lower court within three days. It clarified the injunction allows hydraulic boring but not DMC piling or chisel cutting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move lower court for variation; lower court to decide within three days; petitioner free from restraint regarding hydraulic boring.

Media Systems India Soft Solutions Private Limited… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/14TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 9 of 2017 (O) ------------------------

¶6

IA 8520/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 24-12-0216 -----------

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

MEDIA SYSTEMS INDIA SOFT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, INFO PARK, LEELA INFOPARK(CARNILVAL), PHASE-II, UNIT IC, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.RESHMA G.MENON SMT.K.J.JISMA SRI.O.U.ANISH RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

N M ALI, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADIJARE ERINJERIL, BRAHMAPURAM P O, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682303.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.K.PAUL(B/O)

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

OP(C).No. 9 of 2017 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBI -------	TS --
EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE INDIA, DATED 1	COPY OF THE APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY 7/3/2015.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE DATED 2	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.INFOPARK/SWCB/167IA/15 5/6//2015.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE OF THE	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO D/540/16-K.DIS SENIOR TOWN PLANNER DATED 26/3/2016.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE KERALA	COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 6/10/2016 OF THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE DATED 2 SERVICE	COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE NO.D1/3973/16 5/6/2016 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE S, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE ENGINEE	COPY OF THE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT OF MASTER RING SERVICES OF FEBRUARY 2015.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE PETITIO	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE NER TO THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 22/11/2016.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE DATED 2	COPY OF THE ORDER NO A3-6384/16 3/11/2016 OF THE RDO MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE DATED 1	COPY OF THE CONTRACTORS ALL RISK INSURANCE /12/2016
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE NO 8520 TO BE F	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED AS IA OF 2016 DATED 24.12.2016 IN OS NO.... OF 2016 ILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE NO 8520 JUDGE,	COPY OF THE AD INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA OF 2016 DATED 24/12/2016 OF THE DISTRICT ERNAKULAM(VACATION COURT).

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶23

O.P.(C) No. 9 of 2017

¶24

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2017

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

1.This original petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved

¶27

by Ext.P11 ex parte ad interim injunction passed by the court below. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was permitted to do the construction work by using DMC piling and chisel cutting based on an order passed by the RDO and therefore, according to the petitioner, the interim injunction order is without any basis. The petitioner further alleges that there is suppression of material facts.

¶28

2.The copy of the original petition was served on the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears before the court below.

¶29

3.It is now submitted that the injunction petition is posted to tomorrow. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly attempted to argue the matter on the ground that the order cannot be interfered with by

¶30

O.P.(C) No. 9 of 2017

¶31

..2..

¶32

the civil court, I am of the view that the petitioner has to bring the matter to the notice of the civil court by filing a counter affidavit and to seek variation and modification of the injunction order. Considering the urgency involved, this Court is of the view that the interim injunction petition has to be disposed of by the court below within a period of three days after hearing both the parties.

¶33

4.It is to be noted that by the interim injunction order, the petitioner was restrained only from conventional mode of piling such as DMC piling and chisel cutting and has not been restrained from hydraulic boring. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is free to do any other activity other than the activities restrained by Ext.P1 injunction order.

¶34

5.The original petition is disposed of, as above.

¶35

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶36

bka/-

Media Systems India Soft Solutions Private Limited v. N M Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Media Systems India Soft Solutions Private Limited v. N M Ali

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

Vimal Sagar.M Vs Remya.K

Khaleel Vs Aranjikkal Jamal Muhammed

K.S.Sreedevi Vikraman Vs Ranny Block Rural Housing Co-Operative Society Q-826

S.Krishnamma Vs Suresh Kumar

K.Sanish Kumar Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

S K Azfar Ali Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited