DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
PETITIONER: BIG MOVERS, REPRESENTED BY
MRS. ROSILY XAVIER
RESPONDENT: 1) MS. REENI GEORGE
2) PRIME SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS
3) COCHIN PORT TRUST
4) SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST
The judgement that was passed with respect to this case was that mere potential of a person to inhabit the premises via a licence was insufficient to render them a required or appropriate party in a pending appeal between both the licensor and the licensee.
1) Union of India v Sher Singh
2) Moser v Marsden
3) Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional
Member board of revenue, Bihar & Anr.
4) Razia Begum v Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors.
1) According to the statement supporting the petition, the appellant, M/s Big Movers, had, in response to the Notice asking bids, issued by that of the Cochin Port Trust, placed a bid for the project.
2) The petitioner's lawyers, C.R. Syamkumar, Sooraj T. Elenjickal, P.A. Mohammed Shah, Aswin Kumar M.J, Renoy Vincent, Helen P.A., Arun Roy, and Shahir Showkath Ali, contended that they had placed the bid for the open space that the appellants were occupying illegally.
3) A payment of Rs.8,16,454 had been made and the firm provided a quote that was costed Rs.65,10,000/- as opposed to Rs.21,50,650/- at the base pricing and was informed that the price stated by M/s Big Movers was highest.
4) Itwas believed that the contract would've been given to M/s.Big Movers if all the requirements had been met. However, the issuance of the tender had indeed been postponed due to the pending appeal and the temporary order issued therewith.
5) As a result, the petitioner's injunction was obtained by claiming it as a party, which resulted in a quick disposition of the case. The petitioner had paid earnest money in the amount of Rs.8,16,640, and was incurring a significant financial loss as a result of the appeal's pending status.
6) The Cochin Port Trust, upon discovering that the amount that had been spoken for by petitioner Company would not have been valid after 11.04.2021 due to the aspects in the Tender notice, had informed the Company that the authenticity of the said Bid would be extended initially until 31-07-2021 and then until 31-10-2021, by different communication channels issued to them.
7) The respondents, on the other side, countered that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party, and that the appeal's outcome had no bearing on the plaintiff's interests.
8) They argued, nevertheless, that the licence was definitive and also that the issue should be determined in the District Court appeal currently underway. They agreed that even if the respondents were evicted, the petitioner may take possession of the property.
1) Who is a required party in a lawsuit, appeal, or other procedure?
2) Could a company who has given a high bid and is seeking ownership of the grounds or building after a licensee has vacated the grounds or building be either a proper party or a required party in a lawsuit between the licensee and the licensor?
1) The lawyers for respondents 1 and 2 argued that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor suitable party to the matter at hand. Respondents 1 and 2 were holding the facilities illegally because they did not submit a licencing fee, as per the Port Trust, and the plaintiff asked if they could take control of those premises.
2) It was further contended that the licence was permanent, and that this question was required to be settled as part of an appeal currently pending in District Court. As per the learned counsel, if the respondents were removed, the property may be taken by the appellant.
3) Petitioner 1 sought to be held as an additional defendant in the suit, and defendants 1 and 2 were presently holding the property. The only hurdle to the plaintiff's occupation of the property was that respondents 1 and 2 had to abandon the premises.
4) Although it was correct that one party may be able to occupy the premises through a licence, this did not entitle that person to be considered a necessary or proper party in the transaction. The petitioner's attendance was not required for the petition to be successfully decided, according to the claim. Rather than being a necessary or proper party to the present appeal, the petitioner was merely a convenience.
5) Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam, cannot be held responsible for rejecting I.A.No.5/2021 in line. As per the data, respondents 1 and 2 seemed to have been in possession of the land within the conditions of a permission. Respondents 1 and 2 had been utilizing the property without owing the licencing fee for certain time, according to the Cochin Port Trust's experienced lawyer, and a large sum was still outstanding.
6) As a result, the Port Trust's petition had to be determined by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam, as soon as it was practicable. As a result, the Port Trust's lawyer asked the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam, to issue an order expediting the appeal's decision.
7) While upholding the order, the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam was urged to accelerate the hearing and decision of A.S.No.11/2021 as soon as possible, at the very least before the court closed for the summer vacation.
8) Within seven days, a record of this decision had to be forwarded to the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam, for his review and compliance. The original Petition the was thrown out.
While giving the judgement the High court stated that, “In order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raisesquestions relating to movable or immovable property. That is not the case here as facts ipso facto would establish.” And hence the original petition was disposed immediately.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement