Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
JAFEER P.P PROPRITER ARCHINGS BUILDERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S EPSON INDIA PVT.LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts and context of the case stated. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability and interim relief. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the interim order and its nature. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ,J Heard C.M. Appln No.1 of 2026 for condonation of delay.
The appeal has been filed with a delay of 32 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned, and the Writ Appeal is heard finally.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
2.1. The present intra-court appeal assails the interim order dated 07.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.41396/2025 whereby the Writ Petition has been entertained, admitted, notice issued to the respondents therein.
Facts:
3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition and the complainant in C.C.No.172/2025 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur. And the 1st respondent/Petitioner is the 3rd opposite party in CC No.172/2025 whereby the 1st respondent was decla
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
