Disposed

Mohammed Roshan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2024WP(C)/2147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, proprietor of Ayush Industries, filed a writ petition seeking protection from obstruction caused by the fourth respondent, a former manager. After evaluating evidence and affidavits, the court found no justification for the respondent's interference. The court made the previously granted interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of making the interim order absolute; petitioner directed to approach the Second Respondent if obstruction is caused.

Mohammed Roshan Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2147 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMEDROSHAN
AGED27YEARS
S/O.NOUSHAD,PROPRIETORAYUSHINDUSTRIES,
KUTTIYILMUKKU,VENGAMURI,MYNAGAPALLYVILLAGE,
KOLLAM.RESIDINGATPADIYATHUGULROSH,
VETTILATHAZHAM.P.O.,DECENTMUKKU,KOLLAM,
PIN-691577
BYADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR(KOLLAM)
NAMITHARAJESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THESTATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHESECRETARY,HOMEAFFAIRS,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001
2THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTAPOLICESTATION,KOLLAM,
PIN-690521
3THESUPERINTENDENTOFPOLICE
KOLLAMRURAL,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM,
PIN-691506
4SUBAIRKUTTYH
AGED65YEARS
S/O.HAMEEDKUTTY,RESIDINGATRAHIYAMANZIL,
VENGAMURI,VENGAP.O.,SASTHAMCOTTA,
KOLLAM,PIN-690521
BYADVS.
S.MUHAMMEDHANEEFF
M.H.ASIFALI(K/000732/2016)
ARAVINDTRAMESH(K/000993/2016)

¶10

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶11

¶12

RAJANAJOSE(K/1696/2022)

¶13

SMTCSSHEEJA,SR.GP.

¶14

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON01.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner states that on the strength of Ext.P1 and P2 sale

¶19

deeds, he has purchased certain items of property comprised in Survey No. 209/7 in Block No. 10 of the Mynagapally Village from the 4th respondent. In the property purchased as aforesaid, he has commenced a proprietary firm in the name and style of ‘Ayush Industries’. The said firm is engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel water tanks.

¶20

The petitioner refers to Ext.P3 license issued from the local authority, Ext.P4 GST registration, Ext.P5 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board and Ext.P7 license obtained by the petitioner from the Inspector, Department of Factories and Boilers to substantiate that the petitioner is the proprietor of Ayush Industries and that no other person has any authority or role in the conduct of the business of the concern.

¶21

The petitioner states that the fourth respondent, who is a near relative, was appointed as the Manager. Later, it was revealed that the fourth respondent had carried out certain financial manipulation, and by Ext.P9, the authorization issued to him was cancelled. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by his removal from the employment, the fourth respondent is obstructing the running of the business. The workers are not

¶22

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶23

¶24

permitted to do their work and they are being continuously threatened. Highlighting his grievances, the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P10 complaint before respondents 2 and 3. However, no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P10 complaint and afford assistance and protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members from any acts of violence from the fourth respondent.

¶25

When this writ petition was taken up for consideration on 18.01.2024, as an interim measure, this Court directed the second respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained and no obstruction is caused by the party respondent to the running of the business by the petitioner herein.

¶26

A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent controverting the contentions. It is stated that the fourth respondent is suffering from various ailments, and for his treatment, substantial amounts were required. He borrowed amounts from the petitioner, who insisted that Ext.P1 sale deed be executed as security for repayment. It is stated that

¶27

thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent wherein the petitioner undertook that the property would be

¶28

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶29

¶30

reconveyed as and when the amounts are repaid. It is asserted that the fourth respondent is also a partner of the concern Ayush Industries, and he had also invested substantial amounts for the commencement of the business. It is further stated that the fourth respondent has filed a caveat before the Munsiff Court, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.R4(c). He states that he was manhandled by the petitioner, for which a complaint has been filed. It is further stated that on the pretext of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner managed to get possession of the factory premises, and he is not permitting the fourth respondent to enter the premises.

¶31

I have heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S. Mohammed Haneef, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records made available before this Court.

¶33

I find that the records issued by the statutory authorities disclose that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of Ayush Industries. The contention of the fourth respondent is that he is one of the partners of the firm. However, no records are placed before this Court to substantiate the same. The 4th respondent relies on Exhibits P1 and P2 agreement to

¶34

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶35

¶36

substantiate that the petitioner has undertaken to reconvey the property. The petitioner, however, contends that the agreements are not genuine and were brought into existence to set up a false case. He also contends that when the stamp paper is seen to have been purchased, the petitioner was not even in the country. I find from Ext.P8 that the fourth respondent was appointed as the General Manager of the factory on 01.04.2023, and later on 05.12.2023, his authorization was cancelled. As there is nothing before this Court to show that the fourth respondent has any right to interfere with the rights of the petitioner in efficiently running the concern, there is no justification on his part for disrupting the functioning of the factory. If the fourth respondent has a contention that the sale deed is a sham document, it is for him to establish the same before the jurisdictional civil court. As the petitioner is the proprietor and as he has licenses in his name, the fourth respondent has no authority to interfere.

¶37

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, making the interim order absolute. If any obstruction is caused by the fourth respondent, the petitioner may approach the second respondent, which authority shall afford adequate protection to the petitioner to run the

¶38

business.

¶39

sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶40

DCS

¶41

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2147/2024

¶44

PETITIONEREXHIBITS

¶45

`Exhibit-P 1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `SASTHAMCOTTA SRO`	`THE SALE DEED NO. 351/2021 OF`
`Exhibit -P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SASTHAMCOTTA SRO`	`SALE DEED NO. 2120/2021 OF`
`Exhibit -P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY MYNAGAP`	`THE LICENSE DATED 18.05.2023` `ALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT`
`Exhibit-P 4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 15.05.2023`	`GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE`
`Exhibit -P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KERALA STATE POLL`	`CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY` `UTION CONTROL BOARD`
`Exhibit-P 6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `04.02.2023`	`CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED`
`Exhibit -P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DEPARTMENT OF FAC` `24.08.2023`	`LICENSE ISSUED BY THE` `TORIES AND BOILERS DATED`
`Exhibit -P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`OFFER LETTER ISSUED TO THE 4TH` `01.04.2023`
`Exhibit-P 9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KALLADA BRANCH OF` `05.12.2023`	`E-MAIL SENT TO THE WEST` `THE FEDERAL BANK LTD DATED`
`Exhibit -P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `GIVEN TO THE 2ND`	`COMPLAINT DATED 10.01.2024` `AND 3RD RESPONDENTS`

¶46

RESPONDENTEXHIBITS

¶47

WP(C)NO.2147OF2024

¶48

¶49

`Exhibit`	`R4(a)`	`A true copy of agreement dt.21.10.2021executed` `by the petitioner and 4th respondent`
`Exhibit`	`R4(b)`	`A true copy agreement dt.17.11.2023 executed by` `the petitioner and 4th respondent`
`Exhibit`	`R4(c)`	`A true copy of the Caveat Application .No.` `3/2024 filed by the 4th respondent before the` `Hon'ble Munsiff's Court, Sasthamkotta`
`Exhibit`	`R4(d)`	`A true copy complaint dt.12.01.2024 filed by` `the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent` `along with receipt of the complaint dt.` `15.01.2024`

Mohammed Roshan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Roshan v. the State of Kerala

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

Abeesh K. Vs Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Thomas.v.J, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Narayanankutty.K.K Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.S. Ayoob Khan Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Rajendra Prasad.S Vs the Paravur Snvrc Bank Ltd. NO.1685