Maratt Rubber Limited v. J.K. Marattukalam and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- Judgment Date
- 2012-05-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. IA No.1622/2010 allowed on condition of payment of Rs. 25,000 to the respondents' counsel within one month. IA No.1689/2010 dismissed. Exts. P5 and P6 will remain intact if costs are not paid. The liability, if any, to be decided at trial.
- Final Disposition
- Original Petition disposed of; no costs. IA 1622/2010 allowed on condition of payment of costs; IA 1689/2010 dismissed; liability and quantum to be determined at trial.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- MARATT RUBBER LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 6TH MILE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE, REP.BY ITS, MANAGING DIRECTOR M.K.MARATTUKALAM, S/O.LATE KUNCHERIA
Respondents
- J.K.MARATTUKALAM, S/O.LATE KUNCHERIA TANA, MAMPAD, P.O.MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505
- K.K.MARATTUKALAM, S/O.LATE KUNCHERIA, TANA, MAMPAD P.O.MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505
- T.K.MARATTUKALAM, S/O.LATE KUNCHERIA DESIGNS INDIA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, MYSORE CITY KARNATAKA STATE-570001
- U.MOOSA, S/O.UMMASTHOOR RAYIN MALABAR HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DIST-676505
- E.MOHAMMED, S/O.MAMMED,MANNARGHAT HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM DESOM, POOKKATTUR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
- • SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is an original petition under OP(C) 921 of 2010 in the Kerala High Court, arising from a suit for injunction and, in the alternative, possession (OS 304/1995) filed by Maratt Rubber Limited against five respondents. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as party receivers under a prior judgment (CMA No. 234/1996) and remained in office until their removal in 2001. The plaintiff originally did not plead mesne profits in the plaint. On the eve of trial, two interlocutory applications were moved: IA 1622/2010 for amendment to claim future mesne profits and IA 1689/2010 for directions to deposit profits with the court. The Subordinate Court dismissed both, Exts. P5–P6. The High Court held that a receiver holds the property for the benefit of the eventual winner and that profits earned by receivers should be distributed pro rata to each party’s share. It allowed IA 1622/2010 subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 25,000 toward costs to the respondents’ counsel within one month; Exts. P5 and P6 would remain intact if costs are not paid. IA 1689/2010 was dismissed; the quantum and tenure of the receivership would be decided at trial. The court acknowledged some delay (laches) but condoned it by imposing costs. The petition is disposed of with no costs awarded. The decision clarifies the course for future mesne profits and the method of adjudicating liability and profits at trial.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- A receiver holds the property for the benefit of the person who ultimately wins the suit
- Profits collected by receivers must be shared among the parties in proportion to their share
- Laches can be condoned by directing costs to be paid
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend for amendment of the plaint (I.A. 1622/2010) to include a claim for future mesne profits, arguing that a receiver's profits should be accounted for and distributed to the losing parties proportionally if the suit succeeds. They maintain that the relief for mesne profits should be considered at trial, subject to appropriate assessment of profits and liability; the court should permit the amendment and allow the future profits claim, along with directions to deposit the receivers' profits where appropriate. They contend any delay is a matter of adjustment, and the court should exercise discretion, noting the prior appointment of party receivers and their removal.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents' counsel relied on precedents (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Patil and Others; T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board) to argue that the claim for future mesne profits is barred by limitation or should be resolved by the trial court. They submitted that the claim for profits from receivers is a matter for evidence and not to be decided at this stage; the trial court should decide issues on limitation and liability with appropriate findings; they urged that delay amounts to laches and, if necessary, costs should be awarded.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others | AIR 1957 SC 363 | Mentioned Only | Cited as authority by counsel; the court does not indicate that the doctrine is being adopted or distinguished in this judgment. |
| T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board and Others | 2004 (3) SCC 392 | Mentioned Only | Cited in argument by the respondents; no explicit treatment or application of the decision is stated in the ruling. |
| Raju Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Others | (2001) 2 SCC 472 | Mentioned Only | Cited as a reference for issues related to limitation; no direct doctrinal adoption in the decision. |
| Abdulla v. Pathumma | 2003(2) KLT 289 | Mentioned Only | Cited for comparative reasoning on delay and limitation; not expressly overruled, distinguished, or adopted. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Maratt Rubber Limited v. J.K. Marattukalam and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.