Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 RP NO. 787 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/4/2021 IN RFA NO.203 OF 2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 & 2 & RESPONDENTS IN CROSS OBJECTION/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2:
1 CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT I, DR.V.B.GANDHI MARG, MUMBAI-400 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., NOW AT 6TH FLOOR, CG HOUSE, DR.ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 030. (RENAMED)
(NAME OF THE 1ST APPELLANT IS RENAMED AS 'CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED) REGD OFFICE, C.G. HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-
400030, INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR' AS PER ORDER DATED 09/04/2021 IN IA NO.1/2019)
2 M/S.CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.
KELW DIVISION, ATHANI, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (RENAMED)
(NAME OF THE 2ND APPELLANT IS RENAMED AS 'CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED), KELW DIVISION, ATHANI, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR' AS PER ORDER DATED 09/04/2021 IN IA NO.1/2019)
BY ADVS.
P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
ABEL TOM BENNY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR/PLAINTIFF:
ICON INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES AND SOFTWARE LTD ATHANI, ALUVA-8, NOW HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOLENCHERRY, HOUSE NO 794/5, WARD NO. 5, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KOLENCHERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The above review petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 9/4/2021 in RFA No.203/2008.
2. The review petitioners were the appellants in RFA and the defendants 1 and 2 in OS No. 137/2002 before the trial court. The suit was one for recovery of money due from the review petitioners based on an agreement dated 17/7/1999 entered into between the review petitioners and respondents for the sale of the review petitioners' division at Athani. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of `1,83,25,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the review petitioners preferred RFA No.203/2008 before this Court. The respondent filed cross objection. This court dismissed the appeal and allowed cross objection in part by modifying the decree directing the review petitioners to pay `2,55,25,000/- to the respondent with interest and costs. The review petition has been filed, aggrieved by the finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which was arrived at by this Court in the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard both sides.
The review petitioners raised a specific plea in the written statement that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. A specific issue of territorial jurisdiction was also framed. After considering the rival contentions and evidence on record, the trial court found that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In the appeal, on reappreciation of evidence, this Court confirmed the trial court's finding on territorial jurisdiction. The contentions now raised by the review petitioners in this review petition were raised by them before the trial court as well as before this Court. This Court, as well as the trial court, extensively considered those contentions and found the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction against the review petitioners. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the judgment. The review petitioners did not show sufficient reason to review the judgment.
We find no merit in the review petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
