Kerala High Court
Revision vs Huawei Telecommunications (India) ... on 19 December, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1940
CRP.No. 386 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 162/2015 of I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 19-12-2017
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS
1 HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD
14TH FLOOR, UNITECH CYBER PARK, TOWER C,
SECTOR 39, GURGAON, HARYANA 122002, INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD
14TH FLOOR, UNITECH CYBER PARK, TOWER C,
SECTOR 39, GURGAON, HARYANA 122002, INDIA,
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PQMD)
HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD
14TH FLOOR, UNITECH CYBER PARK, TOWER C,
SECTOR 39, GURGAON, HARYANA 122002, INDIA,
4 THE MANAGER,
HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD
1ST & 2ND FLOOR, STATION JUNCTION, MANJOORAN ESTATES,
CHERANALLOOR ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF.:
PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS
S.PURAM PO, KURICHY, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. SHAJI MATHEW,
S/O MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS.PIN 686 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP.No. 386 of 2018
REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE A DIARY DATED 19.12.2017
IN O.S.NO.162 OF 2015 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE A DIARY DATED 19.12.2017
IN OS 162 OF 2015 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
ERNAKULAM
K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, J.
-----------------------
C.R.P.No.386 of 2018
-----------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2018
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Sub Court, Ernakulam dated 19.12.2017 in O.S.No.162/2015. A point was raised as to whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of the contentions that there is an arbitration clause in the written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. The point was decided by the court below by its above referred order. In paragraph 8, it is held as follows:
From these contentions, it can be safely concluded that the suit is maintainable before the court finding the contentions of the defendants as unsustainable. Therefore, this preliminary issue is found in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that originally the finding of the court was written in the A diary of the court as follows:
b