Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus M/S. WESTERN INDIA COTTONS LIMITED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. M/S. WESTERN INDIA COTTONS LIMITED - WP(C) No. 12618 of 2007(B) [2007] RD-KL 9143 (31 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12618 of 2007(B)

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S. WESTERN INDIA COTTONS LIMITED,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :31/05/2007

O R D E R

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 12618 OF 2007 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 31st May, 2007



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed for a direction to call for the records leading to the order dated 20-3-2007 and re-post Arbitration O.P. No. 8/2005 and Arbitration O.P. No. 3/2006 for re-hearing and also for a writ of mandamus permitting the petitioner to engage the designated senior counsel in appearing in both the cases without filing the vakalath or memo signed by him on a date fixed by the court.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Arbitration O.P. No. 3/2006 is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board for setting aside the award and Arbitration O.P. No. 8/2005 is filed by the company to pass a decree in terms of the award under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The matter was being pursued before the court and on 20-3-2007 the matter was taken up for orders after noting 'heard jointly'. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that their argument was not heard whereas the other side would contend that the junior argued the case on that day. By the time a writ petition is filed WPC No.12618 /2007 -2- and a stay is obtained and final orders are not passed in the matter. So, without going into further details it is only just that the matter is heard in full to the satisfaction of the parties by the court before pronouncement of the order. Similarly, it has also to be stated that if a senior designated counsel is to appear the court cannot insist for filing of a vakalath or memo and he be permitted to argue the case. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

1. The Sub Court, Thalassery, is directed to re- post and re-hear Arbitration O.P. No. 8/2005 and Arbitration O.P. No. 3/2006.

2. The court should permit the senior counsel to argue the case without insisting for a vakalath or memo of appearance. I am told, the matter is posted to 2-6-2007 and therefore the court in consultation with the advocates, may fix a convenient date for re- hearing and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Sub Court, Thalassery, over phone. M.N. KRISHNAN

JUDGE

jan/ WPC No.12618 /2007 -3-


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.