V.M.H.Ahamadullah vs. Hdfc Bank Limited
Facts
The petitioner, V.M.H. Ahamadullah, proprietor of M/s. New Jubilee Marketing, filed an Original Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala. The petition was filed against an order in CMA 99/2019 of the Additional District Court & Sessions Court - VII, Ernakulam. The respondents were HDFC Bank Limited and ITC Limited. The petitioner's counsel conceded that a new suit, O.S.No.692/2020, had been filed before the III Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Consequently, no further orders were deemed necessary in the present Original Petition or in O.S.325/2019, which was pending on the files of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam.
Held
The Court held that no further orders were required in the Original Petition (Civil) No. 752 of 2020 or in O.S.325/2019, given the petitioner's concession that a new suit, O.S.No.692/2020, had been filed. The reasoning was based entirely on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel. The ratio decidendi is that if a party concedes that a new proceeding has been initiated which supersedes or renders the current proceeding unnecessary, the court will act upon that concession. The operative direction was to dismiss the Original Petition and to direct the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, to cease all further action in O.S.325/2019 and to close the same as having been not pressed. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's Original Petition (Civil) No. 752 of 2020 requires further orders, given the filing of a new suit. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, conceded that a new suit, O.S.No.692/2020, had been filed before the III Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Based on this development, the petitioner's counsel submitted that no further orders were required in the present Original Petition or in the pending suit O.S.325/2019. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents (HDFC Bank Limited and ITC Limited) regarding the issues before the court. The court's decision appears to be based on the petitioner's concession.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUE AY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 OP(C).No.752 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 99/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: V.M.H.AHAMADULLAH, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.V.M.HYDERALI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.NEW JUBILEE MARKETING, 4TH FLOOR, MAM TOWER, KALOOR KADAVANTHARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SRI.FEMY ANN JOHNSON SRI.REUBEN PHILIP ABRAHAM SRI.KANDAMPULLY VIKRAM RESPONDENTS: 1 HDFC BANK LIMITED, SUDHAS BUILDING, MADHAVA PHARMACY JUNCTION, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2 ITC LIMITED, VIRGINIA HOUSE, 37, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 071, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OPC 752/20 2 JUDGMENT Sri.Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, concedes that a new suit, namely O.S.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.