Dismissed

C.G.Vijay Kumar v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021FAO/9/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed an appeal concerning a dismissed interlocutory application where the plaintiff sought to restore seized vehicles in a Section 92 CPC suit. The court held the trial court correct in ruling it lacked jurisdiction as the dispute with a third party was unrelated to the suit's cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Applications dismissed; First appeal dismissed with no costs.

C.G.Vijay Kumar Vs Cholamandalam Investment… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2020 IN I.A.NO.7/2020 IN OS 32/2018 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS & 1ST DEFENDANT AND 1ST COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

1 C.G.VIJAY KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS S/O.C.N.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAPARAMPIL HOUSE, PERUNAD MURI, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

2 T.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.T.K.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT THANUVELIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3 P.K.KAMALASANAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4 K.K.SOMAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.K.A.KESAVAN, RESIDING AT KARUMPIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

5 MANOJ.B., AGED 45 YEARS S/O.K.BALAN, MANOJ BHAVAN, ADICHIPUZHA P.O., R-PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

6 C.V.RAJANKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.C.K.VASU, KALEYIL, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O. KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

7 SREE NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, ATHIKKAYAM, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ATHIKKAYAM, NARANAMMOZHY P.O., R-PERUNAD, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689711, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADHOC PRESIDENT, C.G.VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.C.N.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAPARAMPIL HOUSE, PERUNAD MURI, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

BY ADV K.SHAJ

¶18

RESPONDENT/1ST COUNTER PETITIONER/ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT NO.11:

¶19

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, PUTHUSSERIL BUILDING, ST.PETERS JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA HAVING OFFICE AT RATAN ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE, NO.2, NSC BOSE ROAD, PARRYS, CHENNAI-600001, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY.

¶20

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

In a suit for settling scheme under Section 92 CPC, the plaintiff preferred an interlocutory application seeking to restore the vehicles belonged to the Trust seized by a financial company. It was rejected and dismissed by the trial court on the reason that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the said issue in the suit, against which the appellant/plaintiff/petitioner came up.

¶25

It is inter alia submitted by the

¶26

appellants that since there is no bar under Section 9 CPC, to take up and decide a civil dispute of the nature raised in the

¶27

interlocutory application, the trial court is not justified in dismissing the application for want of jurisdiction.

¶28

The jurisdiction vested with the trial

¶29

court to adjudicate all civil disputes unless

¶30

¶31

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

¶32

expressly or impliedly barred as enumerated under Section 9 of CPC, cannot be applied so as to bring up an inter se dispute with a third person unless the said issue is directly, substantially or incidentally involved and available for determination in the suit. The jurisdiction vested with the court can be exercised only with respect to the matters which would come under the four corners of the suit in accordance with the mandate under Order II Rules 1 and 2 CPC based on the cause of action available though the jurisdiction is so extensive and exhaustive under Section 9 CPC unless specifically or impliedly barred by other provisions.

¶33

The dispute involved in the suit for determination is with respect to necessity for framing a scheme for the administration of Trust and connected matters. A dispute regarding seizure of vehicle by a third person

¶34

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

(financial company) with the Trust will not come under the purview of the suit unless the suit was instituted for that purpose also. Admittedly, the present suit is one for framing of scheme for the administration of Trust and connected matters, hence no interlocutory application can be maintained with respect to an inter se dispute with a third person. Hence the First appeal fails and dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

FAO NO. 9 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF FAO 9/2021

¶44

APPELLANTS’ ANNEXURE

¶45

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY PETITIONERS 1 TO 6.

¶46

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.7/2020 IN O.S.NO.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY PETITIONERS 1 TO 6.

¶47

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/11TH ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT IN I.A.NO.7/2020 IN O.S.NO.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶48

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 IN O.S.NO.32/2018 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶49

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURE : NIL

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

PA TO JUDGE

C.G.Vijay Kumar v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Vijay Kumar v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

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

The Managing Director Vs Reji

Raveendran Vs Surendran

Thankamani Vs Vijayadharan

Shaji Jose Vs Raju

M.a.Yousuf Vs M.a.Abdul Khadar

Rajeesh Vs T.Sumithra & Another