Quashed

Lourdes Hospital v. Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020WP(C)/23206/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order barring an appeal due to limitation and associated demand notices. The court relied on the Corporation's counsel's undertaking to reconsider the matter on merits and granted a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order barring appeal and demand notices; petitioner given opportunity of hearing; demands kept in abeyance.

Lourdes Hospital Vs Corporation of Cochin — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.9292 OF 2013(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LOURDES HOSPITAL PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FR.SABU NEDUNILATHU.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN

¶11

COCHIN-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 SECRETARY CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682 011.

¶13

3 REVENUE OFFICER CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682 011.

¶14

BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOYSCCOCHIN CORPORATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).23206/2012(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶22

WP(C).No.23206 OF 2012

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

LOURDES HOSPITAL AGED 48 YEARS PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682012 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FR.SABU NEDUNILATHU.

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN COCHIN-682011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶28

2 SECRETARY CORPORATION OF COCHIN COCHIN-682 011.

¶29

3 REVENUE OFFICER CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682 011.

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).9292/2013(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶33

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Dated this the 13th day of October 2020

¶36

The learned counsel for the Corporation of Cochin

¶37

submits that the Corporation is willing to reconsider the matter with regard to the appeal Ext.P3 dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2012 (Ext.P4) being barred by law of limitation. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Cochin Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Ext.P4 and subsequent demand notices challenged in writ petition No.23206/2012 are liable to be quashed.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the undertaken given by the counsel on instructions from Corporation of Cochin, the impugned order Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.23206 and W.P. (C)No.9292/2013 dated 12.09.2012 and demand notices Ext.P5 series in W.P.(C)No.9292/2013 are quashed. The Corporation is at liberty to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law after

¶39

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶40

¶41

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till

¶42

then, the demand as raised in demand notices are ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶43

Writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9292/2013

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.7.2012 AND NUMBERED AS NO.PMR2/3920/11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND RECIEVED ON 07.08.2012.

¶52

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17.08.2012 IN W.P[C]19456/2012 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶53

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶54

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 12.09.2012 AND NUMBERED AS PMR2/3980/11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶55

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20751 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶56

EXHIBIT P5(A) EXHIBIT P5(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20753 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P5(B) EXHIBIT P5(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20754 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶58

EXHIBIT P5(C) EXHIBIT P5(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20755 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶59

EXHIBIT P5(D) EXHIBIT P5(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20756 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶60

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶61

¶62

EXHIBIT P5(E)	EXHIBIT P5(E)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20757 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(F)	EXHIBIT P5(F)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20758 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(G)	EXHIBIT P5(G)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20759 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(H)	EXHIBIT P5(H)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20760 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(I)	EXHIBIT P5(I)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20761 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(J)	EXHIBIT P5(J)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20762 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(K)	EXHIBIT P5(K)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20763 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(L)	EXHIBIT P5(L)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20764 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(M)	EXHIBIT P5(M)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20765 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(N)	EXHIBIT P5(N)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20766 ISSUED BY THE 2ND

¶63

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶64

¶65

RESPONDENT.

¶66

EXHIBIT P5(O) EXHIBIT P5(O)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20767 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(P) EXHIBIT P5(P)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20768 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(Q) EXHIBIT P5(Q)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20769 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶67

EXHIBIT P5(R) EXHIBIT P5(R)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20770 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(S) EXHIBIT P5(S)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20771 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶68

EXHIBIT P5(T) EXHIBIT P5(T)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2013 AND NUMBERED AS 20772 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶69

WP(C).Nos.9292/2013(J) & 23206/2012

¶70

¶71

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23206/2012

¶72

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESMENT ORDER DATED 23.07.2012 AND NUMBERED AS NO.PMR2/3920/11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND RECEIVED ON 07.08.2012 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2012 IN W.P.(C) 19456/2012 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.09.2012 AND NUMBERED AS PMR2/3980/11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶74

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Lourdes Hospital v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lourdes Hospital v. Corporation of Cochin

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

Ramesan.M.K., Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Inzamam Salim Shah, Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Sivadasan Vs the State of Kerala

M.Salida, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Dineshan K.K. Vs v. Sambashiva Rao