Disposed

Sivadasan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC21 Mar 2017WP(C)/2824/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, whose wife was the owner of a lorry and deceased, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the first respondent (Police) against a repossession attempt by the second respondent. The court noted pending interim orders from the Madras High Court regarding repossession via an Advocate Commissioner and closed the petition pending those proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sivadasan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2824 of 2017 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

SIVADASAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. NATESAN, PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, THIRUMALABHAGOM, THYKKATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688528.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

RESPONDENTS :

-----------

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION, KUTHIYATHODE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688533.

¶14

2. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD., RATAN ARCADE, A.K.STREET, 1ST FLOOR, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688011.

¶15

3. M/S. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SECOND FLOOR, JP TOWERS, VSCB ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT BRIDGE, ALAPUZHA, PIN CODE-688011.

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC

¶17

DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 2824 of 2017 (C)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

----------------------EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO LORRY NO.KL-32J-2511. EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER'S WIFE SMT. OMANA, THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 10/02/2016. EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 11/05/2016 ISSUED BY9 THE THYKKATTUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT EVIDENCING THE DEATH OF SMT.OMANA VIZ. THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATED 05/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE SMT. OMANA. EXHIBIT P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶24

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). NO. 2824 OF 2017

¶27

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner's wife was the registered owner of a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-32J-2511. Petitioner's wife had expired on 30.03.2016. The vehicle in question was covered with a valid insurance with the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had attempted to take forcible possession of the vehicle employing henchmen on 23.01.2017 and it is in this background, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to the first respondent.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶31

W.P.(C). NO. 2824 OF 2017

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent from whom the petitioner's wife has secured a loan of hypothecation in respect of the vehicle specified above, submitted that the second respondent has moved the Madras High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and secured an interim order, whereby an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to repossess the vehicle in question. It is also undertaken by Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that the re-possession of the vehicle will be done only in accordance with law.

¶34

This is recorded and the writ petition is closed.

¶35

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶36

DCS

Sivadasan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sivadasan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Mathew Vs Shynamol

Damayanthi Vs Smt.K.S.Geetha

Jaziya M Vs the Regional Passport Officer

The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) Vs Bijoy

Subair Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Amal F.R @ Amal Fasal Rahman Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education, Rep.by Its Secretary