Dismissed

Seju Ramakrishnan Raghavan v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2017WP(C)/29931/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-employee seeking a refund of compensation paid under protest to his former employer. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it lacked territorial jurisdiction, with the cause of action arising entirely within the Calcutta High Court. The issues of liability were left open.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the amount paid under protest; dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Seju Ramakrishnan Raghavan Vs National… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2017/3RD SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 29931 of 2009 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SEJU RAMAKRISHNAN RAGHAVAN, S/O.R. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT AARAMATHIL, T.C. 11/2101, D-23, KANAKA NAGAR, KAUDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003, PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AS AGM (LEGAL), IDBI BANK LTD., IDBI TOWERS, 6TH FLOOR, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400 005.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., H.O., 3 MIDDLETON STREET, 700 071 KOLKATA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL DEPARTMENT.

¶11

2. IDBI BANK LTD., IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI -400 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES).

¶12

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 003.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 29931 of 2009 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 30/05/2007.

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES.

¶21

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE PTITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/04/21008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/04/2010 COMMUNICATING THE SERVICE A DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P13 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P14 COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT GIVING DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶38

W.P. (C) No.29931 of 2009

¶39

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2017

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Kerala. He was selected and appointed as Administrative Officer in the 1^st respondent-National Insurance Company. The petitioner's initial appointment was at Calcutta in West Bengal. The Head Office of the National Insurance Company is at Calcutta. In connection with his employment, the petitioner had to execute a bond styled as a service agreement. He purchased a stamp paper from Kerala and executed an agreement from Kerala. As per the service agreement, if the petitioner chooses to resign during the bond period, he will have to pay compensation to the Insurance Company. The petitioner resigned from the Insurance Company to join the IDBI. The Insurance Company insisted the petitioner to pay compensation. The petitioner paid the amount under protest to obtain the relieving order from the Insurance Company to join the IDBI. The petitioner is now

¶42

W.P.(C) No.29931/2009

¶43

¶44

working with the IDBI. In this writ petition, the petitioner is essentially seeking a direction for refund of the amount paid under protest.

¶45

In the matter, counter affidavit was filed by the Insurance Company on 10.07.2016. It is to be noted that there was an interim order passed in the matter earlier directing the Insurance Company to communicate the details of service rendered by the petitioner to the IDBI. That interim order has been complied with. It appears that such an order has been passed before the Insurance Company entering appearance. The contention now urged in the counter affidavit filed by the Insurance Company is with regard to jurisdiction.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that no part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea of jurisdiction is taken up after seven years of filing of the writ petition and it would be iniquitous if the writ petition is thrown out at this stage on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

¶48

The question of jurisdiction is essentially a question

¶49

W.P.(C) No.29931/2009

¶50

¶51

regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. If the court does not have any jurisdiction, the pendency of the writ petition for long years cannot confer a jurisdiction on the court if it is otherwise lacking. Therefore, the court will have to examine the plea regarding jurisdiction.

¶52

It is to be noted that no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the State. Merely because the petitioner purchased stamp paper from the State and executed a service agreement unilaterally, it cannot confer a jurisdiction on this Court. The service agreement executed by the petitioner is not a bipartite agreement. It is executed unilaterally. He happened to purchase the stamp paper and executed from the State only because he happened to be a resident of the State. It has nothing to do with an employment offered to him. The offer of employment was from Calcutta and he joined in the service of the Insurance Company at Calcutta. Therefore, all part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

¶53

In the light of the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable as this

¶54

W.P.(C) No.29931/2009

¶55

¶56

Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, leaving open the issues and relegating the petitioner to approach the competent jurisdictional High Court, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

smp

Seju Ramakrishnan Raghavan v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seju Ramakrishnan Raghavan v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Nazar.S Vs University of Kerala

Sreemandara Varma Jain Vs B.S Tirumeni

Biju Jacob Vs Mr.Binu V.V.

Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited Vs M.S.Majeed

N.I.Seshadri Vs G.R.Gokul, District Collector

Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited Vs M.S.Majeed