Dismissed

Ragesh Pilanku v. M/S Klm Axiva Finvest Ltdrepresented by Its Manager and Power of Attorney Holder, Anujan Koshi Tho

Kerala HC26 Mar 2024OP(C)/1346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the upset price fixed by the Execution Court was dismissed as infructuous because the sale had already been effected on 04/07/2023, rendering the prayer pointless.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the sale having been effected on 04/07/2023.

What the court decided

Ragesh Pilanku Vs M/S Klm Axiva Finvest… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1346 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN EP NO.36 OF 2019 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

RAGESH PILANKU AGED 50 YEARS S/O KUNHAMBU, EDADAN, PILANKU HOUSE, PAYYANUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307 BY ADVS. M.ANUROOP MURSHID ALI M.

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶10

M/S KLM AXIVA FINVEST LTDREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANUJAN KOSHI THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS M/S KLM AXIVA FINVEST LTD (FORMERLY M/S NEEDS FINVEST LIMITED), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUBODH BUSINESS CENTRE 408, MALIK CHAMBERS, HYDERGUDA, HYDERABAD 500029, (FORMERLY D NO. 3-4-186, TOBACCO BAZAR, LANE, BEHIND OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 1871 A24, V M PLAZA, PALARIVOTTOM KOCHI 25, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANUJAN KOSHI THOMAS, S/O. A.V THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLOT NO. 8CF/7, BLOCK NO. 1, VASANTH NAGAR, PALARIVATTAM P.O, KOCHI, PIN – 682025

¶11

BY ADVS. SHIJU VARGHESE SACHU THOMAS(K/175/2022)

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

O.P.(C) No. 1346/2023

¶14

..2..

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2024

¶17

The upset price fixed by the Execution Court is under challenge in this original petition.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the decree holder that the sale has already been effected on 04/07/2023. The learned counsel made available to me the certified copy of the proceedings showing that the sale has already been effected. Thus, practically the prayer in this original petition has become infructuous.

¶19

Hence, the original petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶22

APA

¶23

O.P.(C) No. 1346/2023

¶24

..3..

¶25

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1346/2023

¶26

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT	P1 A CERTI	FIED	COPY	OF THE PETITION IN EP
	36/2019 04-2019	OF TH	E SUB	COURT PAYYANUR DATED 10-
EXHIBIT	P2 THE CERT IN EP NO	IFIED . 36/2	COPY 019 D	OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT ATED 10-03-2022
EXHIBIT	P3 THE CERT	IFIED	COPY	OF THE ORDER IN EP NO.
	36/2019 PROPERTY	IN DATED	FIXED 02-0	UPSET PRICE OF THE 3-2023

Ragesh Pilanku v. M/S Klm Axiva Finvest Ltdrepresented by Its Manager and Power of Attorney Holder, Anujan Koshi Tho

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ragesh Pilanku v. M/S Klm Axiva Finvest Ltdrepresented by Its Manager and Power of Attorney Holder, Anujan Koshi Tho

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

Amina Beevi Vs Sonu.R. Jose

Sonu R Jose Vs Nazeer M M

Smera Vs Arun Jyothis Yasodharan

Binu S Vs Kunjumon K

Indira S. Nair Vs Jyothi Kumar

P.K. Parvathy Vs Tata Tea Limited