Allowed

Cheruthazham Panchayath v. C.M.Damodaran

Kerala HC12 Jun 2017RP/383/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the Court recalled a previous judgment that had set aside a concluded property sale during the liquidation of a Co-operative Society. Finding an error apparent on the face of the record due to the completed sale, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the sale and allowed the review.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed; the writ petition is dismissed; the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 is set aside; the Panchayath retains title, possession, and ownership.

Cheruthazham Panchayath Vs C.M.Damodaran — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 383 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.22778/2010 DATED 18-11-2014.

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE SECRETARY, CHERUTHAZHAM PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶11

1. C.M. DAMODARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, FORMER PRESIDENT, PILATHARA TILES AND BRICK WORKERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MOONDOOR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001.

¶13

3. THE LIQUIDATOR, PILATHARA TILES AND BRICK WORKERS, INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MONDOOR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 673 001.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN. R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.A.C. VIDHYA.

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶19

---------------------------------------------R.P.No.383 of 2015 in W.P.(C).No.22778 of 2010

¶20

-------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The review petition has been necessitated for reason of the order dated JCI/PNR/103/15 dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Liquidator (the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition and the review petition) setting aside the sale of the petitioner Panchayath and returning the amounts remitted as sale consideration along with interest.

¶23

The petitioner in the writ petition, the 1^st respondent in the review petition, challenged the sale of a property, in liquidation of Pilathara Tiles and Brick Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. The Liquidator of the Society was impleaded as the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to the petitioner's information, there is no sale effected. It was also submitted that a representation is before the State Government for revival of the Society.

¶24

Relying on the submission that there is no sale effected, this Court directed the General Manager to call for a

¶25

R.P.No.383/2015 2

¶26

report from the 2^nd respondent and to take into consideration any pending proposal before the Government as to the revival of the Society. It is pursuant to such direction that the communication above referred, produced by the petitioner along with a memo dated 09.07.2015, was issued. As per the aforesaid communication dated 29.07.2015, it is clear that a sale has been effected by the Panchayath of the properties for an amount of 7,65,000/- as early as on 25.03.2011. Virtually₹ canceling the sale, the amounts remitted towards consideration was returned with interest. The Panchayath has hence filed the above review petition.

¶27

This Court did not intend that any sale be interfered with, if proceeded with and concluded. The judgment specifically directed that if there is no sale effected the General Manager can consider the matter afresh based on any proposal for revival of the society. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition had filed a counter affidavit specifically indicating that the sale was conducted. The same was not noticed by this Court nor was it brought to the notice of this Court by the Government Pleader appearing then, in the writ petition.

¶28

R.P.No.383/2015 3

¶29

It is pertinent that even the judgment directed the General Manager only to take measures after calling for a report from the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent being aware of the sale having been concluded should have in fact reported the same, upon which the General Manager ought not to have taken any further action in the matter.

¶30

Considering the fact that is has been brought to the notice of the Court that sale had been concluded much earlier in favour of the review petitioner who was also 4^th respondent in the writ petition, necessarily the judgment has to be reviewed since there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment dated 18.11.2014 is hence reviewed and recalled.

¶31

Considering the fact that the sale has been occasioned which stands concluded in favour of the Panchayath there could be no revival proposal at this stage. The sale definitely cannot be interfered with. Writ petition challenging the sale proceedings would stand dismissed for the further ground that the sale itself was not challenged in the writ petition.

¶32

Writ petition dismissed and the communication dated 29.05.2015 issued by the liquidator to the Secretary

¶33

R.P.No.383/2015

¶34

¶35

would have no force. Hence, the Panchayath would not be obliged to take the money and would be entitled to have title, possession and ownership over the property so purchased.

¶36

Review petition stands allowed. Writ petition dismissed.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶40

TRUE COPY

¶41

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶42

DG/14.6.17

Cheruthazham Panchayath v. C.M.Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheruthazham Panchayath v. C.M.Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pallickathodu Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Sri.K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala & Others

Ajitha Vs Mala Grama Panchayath

Selva Bricks Vs the Secretary, Karassery Grama Panchayat

Syed M.A and Another Vs Kottappady Grama Panchayath

Raphy Antony Vs State of Kerala