V.A.P. Industries vs Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 3778 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 9778 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         M/S. V.A.P. INDUSTRIES,
         PLOT NO. D-116, DIAMOND ROAD,
         INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE PARK, MENONPARA ROAD,
         KANJIKODE EAST P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678621.
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
         SHRI. GEORGE JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42,
         SON OF P.V JOSE, PATTOLY HOUSE,
         KOOVAPPADY P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:683544.

         BY ADVS.
         P.N.SANTHOSH
         K.P.GEETHA MANI
         SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN (SR) APPEARS FOR THE
         PETITIONER


RESPONDENTS:

    1    INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
         WALAYAR POLICE STATION,
         PALAKKAD, PIN - 678624

    2    THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
         WALAYAR POLICE STATION,
         PALAKKAD., PIN - 678624

    3    SREEJITH GOPI
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O V.R.GOPI, VELAMMAVUKUDY HOUSE,
         OKKAL P.O, CHELAMATTAM,
         PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
         PIN - 683550
 WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

                            2



     4      SHAJI P.S
            AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O SUBRAMANIAN, POONOLI HOUSE,
            OKKAL P.O, CHELAMATTAM,
            PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
            PIN - 683550

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.E.C. BINEESH, GP
            SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON
            SMT.LOVELY SAMSON(K/86-A/1999)



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

                               3


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023

The petitioner is a Partnership Firm manufacturing

plastic chairs in the Kinfra Industrial Park at Kanjikode,

Palakkad. The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal trespass

and harassment made by respondents 3 and 4 in the

functioning of the Industrial Unit. The petitioner is also

aggrieved by the breaking of machinery in the Industrial Unit.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner is a

Partnership Firm manufacturing plastic chairs. Respondents 3

and 4 were Partners of the Unit earlier. They subsequently

retired from the partnership invoking Clause 17 of the

Partnership Deed. Respondents 3 and 4 hold only 10% share

each. The letter of retirement was given on 21.09.2021. Even

after giving such letter of retirement, respondents 3 and 4 are

coming into the Industrial Unit and using it for collateral

purposes, which hinders the functioning of the Unit. According

to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 have even destroyed WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

certain machinery of the Unit.

3. The petitioner contends that there are 14 workers

in the Industrial Unit and the Industry has to function 24 hours

everyday. Any interference and destruction created by

respondents 3 and 4 would cause irreparable loss to the

Industrial Unit. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are

compellable to give police protection to the petitioner for

running the Industrial Unit without any obstruction from

respondents 3 and 4.

4. Respondents 3 and 4 entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. Respondents 3 and 4 denied the

allegation of the petitioner that they have retired from the

Partnership Firm. Respondents 3 and 4 are still Partners of

the Industrial Unit. They therefore have a right to enter into the

Industrial Unit and get involved in the partnership business.

Respondents 3 and 4 denied the allegations made by the

petitioner that they are causing obstructions to the Industrial

Unit or damaging the machinery in any manner. According to

respondents 3 and 4, apart from storing already manufactured WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

chairs as finished products, there is no production activity

actually going on in the Industrial Unit. Since the issue is

pending consideration before a competent Civil Court, this

Court should not interfere in the matter, in any manner. Any

such interference would affect the outcome of the pending

civil suit.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1

and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

6. The pleadings in the writ petition and arguments

raised at the Bar would indicate that respondents 3 and 4

were Partners of an Industrial Unit manufacturing plastic

chairs. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 have

retired from the Partnership Firm, but still they are interfering

with the activities in the Industrial Unit. Respondents 3 and 4

would deny the allegation that they have retired from the

partnership.

7. It is evident from the pleadings and arguments that

the petitioner has already approached the Commercial Court, WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

Palakkad filing C.S. No.17/2022 seeking an injunction against

respondents 3 and 4. As the dispute involved being

partnership dispute and since the same is pending

consideration before the Commercial Court, Palakkad, it

would be highly improper for this Court to interfere and grant

police protection to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the parties have to resolve their

disputes through appropriate civil proceedings. The writ

petition is therefore dismissed. However, it is made clear that

if there is any law and order issues and such law and order

issues are brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2,

respondents 1 and 2 shall enquire into the matter and take

appropriate steps as are found necessary.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.9778 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9778/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REGISTRATION OF THE FIRM DATED 3/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION.

Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 23/06/2018.

Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 21/09/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 JOINTLY.

Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/03/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10/03/2023 GIVEN FROM THE WALAYAR POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P-6 A COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/03/2023 GIVEN FROM THE WALAYAR POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE FIRM OBTAINED FROM THE GST WEBSITE STARTED BY THE WIVES OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND

Exhibit P-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/03/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.

EXHIBIT P-9       A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
                  25/03/2023   ISSUED   BY    THE    KERALA
                  FINANCIAL CORPORATION TO ONE OF THE
                  PARTNERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM.
Exhibit P-10      A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
                  28/03/2023 SWORN IN BY THE PARTNER
                  SHRI.   MAMMEDKUTTY   TO   BE    PRODUCED

BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ALONG WITH THIS REPLY AFFIDAVIT.