Loading...

M/S Netsyenergy Information … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The … on 20 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
M/S Netsyenergy Information … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The … on 20 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12470 of 2010(G)


1. M/S NETSYENERGY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. SRI.JAYAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI,

6. V.AJAYAGHOSH,S/O.VASAVAN,AGED 40 YEARS,

7. R.MANIKANDAN,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38

8. R.MADHU,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38 YEARS,

9. G.CHANDRAN,S/O.GANGADHARAN,AGED 50 YRS,

10. RAJAN,S/O.KOCHAPPY AGED 52 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.SREE KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :20/01/2011

 O R D E R
           R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                     ***********************
              W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010
                  *****************************
             Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011

                           JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner, who has

purchased an item of property, which was involved in an

insolvency proceedings before the court of the Subordinate

Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The short prayer of the petitioner is

that police protection may be afforded to the petitioner to put up

boundary over the property which he has purchased. According

to the petitioner, there is virtually no dispute about the right of

the petitioner over the property purchased by him or the

boundaries of that property.

2. We had spent a long time hearing the parties.

Towards the fag end of the hearing, it was brought to our notice

that I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P(I.P) No.2 of 1998 is pending

before the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram,

wherein this specific relief has been claimed. Request was made

in that petition for permission to put up the boundary over the

property purchased by the petitioner and the insolvency court

W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 2

was requested to afford police protection to put up such

compound wall.

3. That petition is pending even now and it has not been

disposed of, it was submitted. We wanted both counsel to take

instructions. Both counsel have taken instructions. It is now

conceded that the said petition is pending before the Insolvency

Court. After discussions at the Bar it is agreed that the

petitioner shall seek immediate orders in I.A.No.6331 of 2006.

Parties shall be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the

Insolvency Court, in the proceedings before which court, the

petitioner had purchased the property. In these circumstances,

we are satisfied and it is agreed that this Writ Petition can now

be closed with specific directions to the Subordinate Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram, to dispose of I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P

(I.P) No.2 of 1998, pending before it expeditiously. No further

orders appear to be necessary on that aspect in W.P(c) No.12470

of 2010.

4. After the filing of W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010, the 5th

respondent therein had filed W.P(c) No.13398 of 2010 claiming

directions to the police to afford protection to him for his life.

Not to be left behind, the petitioner in W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010

W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 3

has also made a request that protection may be afforded for the

life of the petitioner herein, ie. the officer representing the

petitioner company.

5. The petitioners in both petitioners assert that they

have no intention whatsoever to take law into their hands and

indulge in any contumacious, culpable, wanton or violent acts

against the other. The learned Government Pleader submits that

in the perception of police, there is no threat to the life or person

of either petitioner. If there be any such threat, the police shall

take necessary action and ensure that such threat is abated,

submits the learned Government Pleader.

6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no

specific directions for police protection for life and person need

be granted to the petitioner in either case. We are satisfied that

the submission/undertaking of the learned Government Pleader

can be accepted.

7. In the result:

A) i) W.P(c) No.12470 of 2010 is dismissed, but

with the specific observation/direction that the

Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, must

dispose of I.A.No.6331 of 2006 in O.P(I.P) No.2 of

W.P(C) Nos.12470 & 13398 of 2010 4

1998 as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within

a period of three months from 01.02.2011. Needless

to say, the parties shall be at liberty to raise all their

contentions in the said I.A before the Insolvency

Court;

ii) Compliance shall be reported to this Court;

iii) Both parties are directed to appear before

the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, where

I.A.No.6331 of 2006 is pending, on 01.02.2011 to

continue the said proceedings;

iv) The Registry shall forthwith communicate

copy of this order to the Subordinate Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram.

B) W.P(c) No.13398 of 2010 is dismissed.

7. Hand over copies of this judgment to the learned

counsel for the petitioner in both cases.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information