Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 24]

Kerala High Court

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Limited on 11 September, 2013

Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim

Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim

       

  

  

 
 
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

    WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/18TH POUSHA, 1935

                                       RP.No. 998 of 2013
                                      ------------------------------
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO. 22713/2013 DATED 11-09-2013
                                                      ....

    REVIEW PETITIONER(S):SOLE RESPONDENT:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

     THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
     EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
     SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING,
     CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

     BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

    RESPONDENT(S):WRIT PETITIONER:
    ------------------------------------------------------

     M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED.,
     BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND,
     COCHIN 003 OWNING SURIANALEE ESTATE,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER - LEGAL.

     BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
     ON 08-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
     FOLLOWING:

Kss



                    C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

               -------------------------------------------------
                      R.P No. 998 OF 2013
                                     IN
                  W.P.(c) No. 22713 OF 2013
               -------------------------------------------------
        DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

                               O R D E R

The review petition is filed on the premise that the operating portion of the judgment in paragraph 4 requires clarification regarding that extent of damages reduced by virtue of the judgment.

2. It is hereby clarified that what is intended is rate of damage should be 25% of the amount determined as contribution payable.

3. The Review Petition is allowed and the judgment will stand clarified to the above extent.

Sd/-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

AMG True copy P.A to Judge