Balasubramanian vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7045 Ker

OP(C) NO. 788 OF 2017
                                     1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         OP(C) NO. 788 OF 2017
AGAINST THE EXECUTION PETITION DT. OCTOBER 2016 ON THE FILES
  OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD IN AN ARBITRAL
AWARD DT.29.01.16 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.339/2015 OF ARBITRAL
                           TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:

    1       BALASUBRAMANIAN
            AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KALIPPA CHETTIYAR, 9/380,
            K.K.PATHY, MEETUKADAI, 5TH MILE, NALLEPPULLY
            PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD-678101.

    2       SENTHIL KUMAR
            AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SHIVARAJ, 12/460(9/465),
            KAYAPPAN CHALLA K.K.PATHY, 5TH MILE, NALLEPPULLY
            PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD-678101.

            BY ADV SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD
            BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

    2       MJSSHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.
            2ND FLOOR, SUNSHINE COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
            LEGAL ASSISTANT, SRI.M.HARIDASAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
            S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
            SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
            SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN


     THIS     OP    (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
17.06.2022,     THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 788 OF 2017
                            2

                        JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed to permit the 1 st

petitioner to pay the decree debt to the respondent

within a period of one year or in eight installments. This

original petition was filed on 01.03.2017. It is more than

5 years, since it is pending consideration. Therefore, the

original petition itself has become infructuous. In the

said circumstances, the original petition is dismissed as

infructuous, without prejudice to the right of the

petitioners to challenge any subsequent orders passed in

the execution proceedings.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/17.06.22 OP(C) NO. 788 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 788/2017

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SUMMARY OF LOAN VEHICLE NO.KL-35-1065 DATED 02/01/2017 SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNT TOWARDS THE LOAN.

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22/09/2015 FILED THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD 29/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED OCTOBER 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT.