The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition filed by Shakeela challenging the liability between her and Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. regarding execution proceedings in an Arbitration case, holding the petition not maintainable.
The original petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/19TH POUSHA, 1940
O.P.(C)No.2024 of 2018
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ARC No.61/2013 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT - V, KOLLAM )
PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
SHAKEELA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.LATE JABBAR, SHAMNAD MANZIL, SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 519.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER AND 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
1 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KILIYILATHU PLAZA, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, R.SREEKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, CREDIT MANAGER, M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KILIYILATHU PLAZA, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2 NAHAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SAID KAMARUDEEN SAHIB, THENGUVILAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 519. BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.2024 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
This original petition is filed seeking the following relief:
(i) issue a direction to the learned 5th Addl. District Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam to dispose the E.P.No.807/2015 in Arbitration Case No.61/2013 as there is no liability between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.
If the petitioner has any objection as regards the execution proceedings, it is something to be urged before the said court. The original petition is not maintainable and
is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
ss
O.P.(C)No.2024 of 2018
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.807/2015 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.61/2013 BEFORE THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT IN EXECUTION PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM IN E.A.397/2017 IN E.P.807/2015 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.61/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF AN AGREEMENT OF HIRE PURCHASE/LEASE/HYPOTHECATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY DATED 15/4/2016.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the original petition challenging the liability between petitioner and 1st respondent is maintainable?
Whether the execution proceedings require direction to dispose the matter as there is no liability between the parties?
SHAKEELA
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.
NAHAS
SATHISH NINAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
