Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARIDASAN, PALAKKANDIYIL HOUSE versus THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARIDASAN, PALAKKANDIYIL HOUSE v. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 33808 of 2006(Y) [2007] RD-KL 6384 (28 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33808 of 2006(Y)

1. HARIDASAN, PALAKKANDIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

2. MUHAMMEDALI, VALLAKANDY,

3. P.MOIDEEN KOYA,

4. ABDHU RAHIMANKUTTY HAJI,

5. PADMANABHAN NAIR,

6. KHADEEJA, PAPPANCHERRY HOUSE,

7. MADHAVI AMMA,

8. KURIAN P.P., S/O.PHILIP,

Vs

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :28/03/2007

O R D E R

K. P. BALACHANDRAN, J.

W.P (C ) No. 33808 of 2006

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the claimants in several Electricity O.Ps filed before the District Court, Kozhikode. In the Adalath conducted by the District Legal Services Authority, the cases of the petitioners were disposed of passing Exts.P2 to P9 awards, wherein, the counsel only of the respective petitioners, the judicial officers, other mediators and authorised representatives of the respondents have signed. It is contended before me on the strength of the decision of this court in Moni Mathai

Vs. Federal Bank Ltd, Arakkunnam [AIR 2003 Ker. 164] that

without notice direct to the party and the party also agreeing for an award being passed as specified therein, the awards cannot be valid as the element of agreement between the parties for a settlement is absent when the counsel for the party alone signs in the award. There is no representation for the respondents. I am of the view that grievance of the petitioners is not without merit. In the result, allowing this writ petition, I quash Exts. P2 to P9 awards and remit the concerned electricity O.Ps back to the District Court, Kozhikode for disposal afresh according to law. It is made clear that the amounts for which Exts.P2 to P9 awards are passed shall not bind the 1st respondent K.S.E.B and shall be no indication that petitioners are really entitled at least to so much amount as awarded under Exts.P2 to P9. The District Judge shall dispose of the electricity O.Ps of the petitioners, ignoring the awards passed therein and without taking into consideration the amount agreed to be paid by the Electricity Board for the purpose of assessment of compensation.

K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.