Judgment
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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 4.
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.