Allowed

M/S. Afeef Cashew Co. v. the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018OP(C)/610/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution seeking direction to Sub Court, Kollam to dispose of an Inter Title Application on maintainability of suit without delay. Court directed trial court to pass orders before summer vacation after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Court, Kollam, to pass orders on Exhibit-P2 I.A. on maintainability of suit after hearing both sides before summer vacation.

M/S. Afeef Cashew Co. Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 610 of 2018

¶6

OS.5/2018 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 4 IN OS 5/18

¶8

1 M/S. AFEEF CASHEW CO., A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT WARD NO.KP III, DOOR NO.83 A, MANGAD POST, KOLLAM, REP BY ITS PARTNER MR. MOHAMMED NAJEEB.

¶9

2 MOHAMMED NAJEEB, AGED 58, S/O P.K. AHAMMED KUTTY, AL-ABBAS, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.

¶10

3 RAJILA NAJEEB, AGED 47, W/O MOHAMMED NAJEEB, AL-ABBAS, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.

¶11

4 MOHAMMED ABBAS, AGED 27, S/O MOHAMMED NAJEEB, AL-ABBAS, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020, REP BY POA MOHAMMED NAJEEB, AGED 58, S/O K.AHAMMED KUTTY.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶13

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN OS 5/18:

¶14

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM-691001,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BIPIN JACOB GEORGE, AGED 37, S/O GEORGE JACOB.

¶15

BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

OP(C).No. 610 of 2018 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.5/2018 OF SUB COURT, KOLLAM DATED 02.02.2018 EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.207/2018 IN OS.5/2018 OF SUB COURT KOLLAM.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBIT

¶23

NIL

¶24

TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶25

¶26

16.3.2018

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

¶29

O.P.(C) No.610 of 2018

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows :

¶34

“To issue direction to the Sub Court, Kollam, to take up Ext.P2 I.A. for raising the question of maintainability of suit in O.S.No.5/2018 in the interest of justice.”

¶35

Heard Sri.Praveen.K.Joy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.S.Ambily, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (The South Indian Bank Ltd.)/plaintiff.

¶36

Sri.Praveen.K.Joy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the limited prayer sought for by the petitioners is only for a direction from this Court to ensure that the Sub Court, Kollam, passes orders on Exhibit-P2 I.A. on the question of maintainability, without much delay, after hearing both sides.

¶37

Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.S.Ambily, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, would contend that the submissions and contentions raised in Exhibit-P2

¶38

: :2::

¶39

O.P.(C) No.610/18

¶40

I.A. are not tenable and sustainable and that even otherwise, the objection should not have been raised as in the manner that has been now done in the instant case by filing Exhibit-P2 I.A. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would further submit that the respondent has been instructed to file counter/written objections to Exhibit-P2 I.A. without any further delay, if the same has not so far been filed.

¶41

To a specific query asked by this Court as to whether Exhibit-P2 I.A. is still pending consideration, both sides would submit that Exhibit-P2 I.A. is pending consideration before the Sub Court, Kollam, who is dealing with O.S.No.5 of 2018. Without entering into merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the Sub Court, Kollam, who is dealing with O.S.No.5 of of 2018, will ensure that orders are passed on Exhibit-P2 I.A., after hearing both sides without much delay, preferably well before the court closes for summer vacation in the second week of April, 2018. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the trial court concerned for necessary information.

¶42

With these observations, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶43

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶44

csl

M/S. Afeef Cashew Co. v. the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Afeef Cashew Co. v. the South Indian Bank 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

Abdul Azeez T.A. Vs Saidalavi K.

Moideen Vs the Land Tribunal

St. Georges Forane Church Vs M/S. Edumart

Biji Pothen Vs Mini Joseph

Sulfath Beevi Vs Rajeena Beegam

A.a.George Vs Jayakrishnan