Dismissed
M/S.Bharat Transport v. Mr.M.Kalyanam
Kerala HCRFA/462/2005
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RFA.No.462 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS NO.664/2000 DATED 10-02-2005 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
M/S.BHARAT TRANSPORT,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.1, THATHA MUTHIAPPAN STREET, CHENNAI-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.A.AROKIARAJ,S/O.A.ANTHUVAN, AGED 47, RESIDING AT D.NO.XIX/505, NORTH KALAMASSERY, COCHIN683 104.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU SRI.G.SREENIVASA PRABHU
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MR.M.KALYANAM, AGED ABOUT 50, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, NO.97, ASOK NAGAR, THIRUKATTALAI P.O., PUTHUKOTTAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
2 M/S. SRI.YOGA VINAYAGA TRANSPORT, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, N.H.ROAD, PUTHUVAYIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MUTTAM, ALUVA-683 106, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PARTNERS:-
4 MR. KUNCHITHAPATHAM, AGED ABOUT 70, S/O. KUNNUSWAMI PILLAI, M/S. SRI YOGA VINAYAGATRANSPORT, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, N.H.ROAD, PUTHUVAYIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MUTTAM, ALUVA-683 106, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.
RFA.No.462 OF 2005 2
5 MR. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 40, S/O.S.PURUSHOTHAMAN, .DO.DO.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA.No.462 OF 2005 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of November 2019
It is submitted by the learned counsel that he has no instruction from the appellant. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissing the appeal for default.
In the result, RFA stands dismissed for default.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ/
M/S.BHARAT TRANSPORT
MR.M.KALYANAM
M/S. SRI.YOGA VINAYAGA TRANSPORT
MARY JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court