SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:

MOHAMMD RAHMATHULLA AGED 57 YEARS S/O.V.P.MOHAMMED, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HORIZON OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TRAINING LLC, SHARJAH UAE, (NOW CLOSED) (NOW RESIDING AT AMEN RESIDENCY, KUKALLINGAL, KAVANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 639).

BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S:

CALICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673 635.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI P C SASIDHARAN SC CALICUT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ext.P4 decision dated 13.8.2020 of the respondent University is under challenge. The petitioner started Horizon of Knowledge Management Training LLC on 25.1.2007 at Jamal Abdul Nazzer Street at Majaz Area in Sharjah UAE. As per the law existed in UAE, in order to start centre, it was necessary to have a local partner to function in the main land of UAE. So the petitioner included one Sahik Khalid Bin Ahamed Bin Sultan Al Quasimi, Deputy Ruler of Sharjah as a silent partner. The object of the company mentioned in the licence was to provide management programmes in different discipline as evidenced from Ext.P1. After starting the centre, tpetitioner came to the know that the respondent was permitting to open centres in Middle East to promote distance Education Programme and submitted an application for seeking permission to operate its programme and signed a MOU with the respondent as the Managing Director of the centre.

2. The respondent approved Horizon knowledge a Management training study centre at Sharjah in 2008-2009 academic year. A refundable caution deposit of 5000 dollar in 2013, was deposited. It was was transferred through Al- ansari exchange from the personal account of the petitioner.

3. Respondent directed all centers which were functioning outside the jurisdiction to stop the programmes and as regards the refund, after having taken legal opinion and given opportunity, found that the petitioner did not give the proof and rejected the same. The impugned order does not take into consideration the contents of Ext.P1 as well as a communication from the silent partner ie, Shaik Khalid Bin Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi, Ext.P5 wherein no objection was given.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Calicut University submitted that the petitioner did not produce any document evidencing the dissolution of the Centre which was in his ownership or otherwise, other than the copy of the passport and an Arabic document issued by the Ministry of Interior-General Directorate of Residence and Foreign Affairs, UAE in which his occupation was shown as Investor and Sponsor, Horizon of Knowledge Management Training LLC.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. On examination of the translation of Ext.P1, Shaik Khalid Bin Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi was silent partner and investor name was shown as Mohammed Rahmathulla Valiyaparambath ie., the petitioner. A professional licence was issued in his name which was converted into limited liability. The other investor Shaik Khalid Bin Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi had already given a no objection as per the communication Ext.P5. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:

“I have no objection to refund the caution deposit to

Mr.Mohammed Rahmathulla Valiyaparambath who now resides in India because the centre closed due to direction from the University. Also request to refund the same in his

bank account in India.”

The impugned order Ext.P4 do not reflect the reference of contents Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P5 but gone in the arena of surmises and conjectures by giving an opaque finding that there was no proof. The laws of UAE are well known whereby for opening any centre by an outsider, a local permanent resident of UAE is required to be included as a silent partner. The action of the respondent University in not refunding the amount is wholly erroneous and fallacious. Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the caution deposit into the account of the petitioner within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

sab AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11892/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE SIGNED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES GOVERNMENT OF SHARJAH DATED

25.01.2007.

Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLAITON OF EXT.P1.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANELLATIION OF VISA ISSUED IN THE NAME OF HORIZON OF KNOWLEDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top