IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12940 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.77/2009 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, CARRYING ON BUSINESS, AMONG OTHER PLACES AT PLOT NO.55, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003, REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, CORPORATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SRI. ANIMESH BALLABH. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA, MR.SATISH MURTI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MR.NANDAGOPAL, PROPRIETOR, MERCANTILE & MAIRNE SERVICES, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT GODOWN NO.55, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI – 3. BY ADV. MR.PHILIP MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12940 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and P12 and quash the same.” 2. Petitioner, a registered company, filed O.S.No.77/2009 for a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering with the operation and shifting of property of the plaintiff from its warehouse. Admittedly, plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the defendant and he was recognized under the agreement entered as its forwarding and clearing agent. Ext.P3 is the copy of the plaint in the suit and Ext.P1, the copy of the agreement entered between the parties. Before entering into Ext.P1 agreement, it is stated a lease agreement was entered into by which a godown belonging to the respondent was given on lease, to the company W.P.(C).No.12940 of 2009 - O 2 to store its goods. Ext.P2 is the copy of the lease deed, renewing the previous lease. Respondent entering appearance in the suit moved an application contending that the agreement between the parties provided for arbitration in the event of any dispute. Ext.P5 is the copy of that application. In the suit, on the application moved by the plaintiff a commission had been appointed and inventory prepared. Ext.P5 is the copy of that application. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides in Ext.P5 application formed a conclusion that Ext.P1 agreement provided for arbitration in the event of dispute between the parties and then passed Ext.P7 order referring the parties to arbitration. Consequential orders under Exts.P8 and P12 were also passed by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of those orders, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find a detailed narration of the W.P.(C).No.12940 of 2009 - O 3 dispute involved between the parties or a scrutiny with respect to legality or propriety of the orders passed by the court below under Exts.P7, P8 and P12 does not arise for consideration as it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit has now become infructuous and he is aggrieved only to the limited extent of the adverse findings made by the learned Munsiff, which according to him, are repugnant to the provisions covered by Ext.P1 agreement. Only on determination of the agreement, according to the learned counsel, reference to arbitration as envisaged under Ext.P1 agreement arise for consideration. It is further submitted that petitioner even now recognize the respondent as a forwarding and clearing agent and the relationship between the two is still covered by Ext.P1 agreement and it remains un-revoked, and not determined till date. The learned counsel for the respondent requested for recording the above submission, and I do so. The parties can work out their remedies by taking recourse to measures as provided by law and in the present writ petition I need not enter into the question under what circumstance, the agreement W.P.(C).No.12940 of 2009 - O 4 between the parties will get determined. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the suit has become infructuous and having regard to the unequivocal admission made that the petitioner treats the respondent still as his forwarding and clearing agent and there is no determination of Ext.P1 agreement, I set aside Exts.P7, P8 and P12 orders passed by the learned Munsiff, which have been passed as if the agreement has been determined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will not prosecute the suit before the court and that the appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Munsiff in the interlocutory application will also be withdrawn. That submission is also recorded. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-