Remanded

M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. K.Subramanyan

Kerala HC25 Oct 2019OP(C)/2585/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an arrest warrant issued during the execution of a consumer forum award, arguing the forum failed to consider their objections. The court set aside the warrant for violating principles of justice and remitted the matter for a fresh determination after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

The arrest warrant (Ext.P8) issued on 20.09.2019 was set aside and the matter remitted to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod to be decided afresh after hearing both parties.

M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd Vs K.Subramanyan — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 19/2010 DATED 20-09-2019 OF DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD REGISTERED OFFICE 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR , KUNNARUVATH BUILDING, MANIKKOTH P.O.KOTTACHERY NORTH, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-671 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MAHESH G, S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA PAI, AGED 50, UDUMBANATTU HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O.CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 541.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

K.SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O RAMAN, RESIDING AT KUNNUMAL HOUSE, MELADUKKAM, PULLUR P.O.KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-671 531.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the respondent in E.A.No.25/2011 in C.C.No.19/2010 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod. E.A.No.25/2011 was filed by the respondent herein seeking for execution of the award passed by the Consumer Forum in C.C.No.19/2010. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum issued Ext.P8 order of arrest warrant against the petitioner, which is challenged in this original petition.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has

¶20

submitted that even though the petitioner had raised

¶21

so many contentions in Ext.P7 objection filed by the

¶22

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

petitioner, none of the contentions was considered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum before passing Ext.P8 order and in the said circumstances, Ext.P8 order is not sustainable. The petitioner

¶25

contended that the petitioner obtained Ext.P4 award of Arbitral Tribunal for an amount of Rs.4,30,338/- with 12% interest per annum from 27.04.2012.

¶26

The above execution petition was filed for realising an amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded in C.C.No.19/2010 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal

¶27

Forum. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is entitled to set off as provided under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC as Ext.P4 award directed the respondent herein to

¶28

pay the amount stated therein to the petitioner. It

¶29

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

appears that even though the petitioner had taken all these contentions, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum did not consider the said contentions of the petitioner before passing Ext.P8 order. In fact, Ext.P8 order does not mention anything about any of the contentions of the parties. Since Ext.P8 order was passed without considering the contentions of the petitioner in accordance with law, Ext.P8 order cannot

¶32

be said to be legal and correct. In the said circumstances, I set aside the same and remit the matter to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod for passing order afresh on E.A.No.25/2011 in C.C.No.19/2010, in accordance with law in the light of the observations in this judgment, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶33

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶34

¶35

In the result, this original petition stands disposed

¶36

of as above.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

RK/25.10.2019

¶41

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 30.10.2010 IN CC NO 19 OF 2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT , DATED 31.8.2011 IN APPEAL NO 91 OF 2011 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPM EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF E.A NO 25 OF 2011 IN CC NO 19 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 10.3.2011 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 28.2.2013 IN AOP NO 233 OF 2012 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR B.P. SASEENDRAN

¶46

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO 194 OF 2016 IN AOP NO 233 OF 12 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶47

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 IN REVISION PETITION NO 3967 OF 2011 BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI.

¶48

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EA NO 25 OF 2011 IN CC NO 19 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD, DATED 20.9.2019

¶49

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT OF ARREST DATED 20.9.2019 IN EA NO 25 OF 2011 IN

¶50

OP(C).No.2585 OF 2019

¶51

¶52

CC NO 19 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOG.

¶53

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

PA TO JUDGE

¶56

M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. K.Subramanyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. K.Subramanyan

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

Myladoor Joseph Vs the Executive Officer

Swathy K., Vs Sajith R.

Rajan @ K.G.Veluswamy Vs Radhammal @ Radhamani Amma

National Aviation Company of India Ltd. Vs Calicut Aviation Services

Victor Vs Devassy

P.Rangadasa Prabhu Vs R. Venkateswara Shenoy