The Secretary, Kerala Plantation Workers v. Prince.P.Pattassery

Kerala HC25 Jul 2007Con.Case(C)/1017/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of an order by the respondent. The Court held that the respondent had substantially complied by issuing cheques to the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were dropped.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings against the respondent are dropped.

The Secretary, Kerala Plantation Workers Vs… — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2007 / 3RD SRAVANA 1929

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 1017 of 2006(S)

¶7

---------------------------------------------AGAINST ORDER DATED 21.12.2004 IN IA 11287/2004 IN OP.18293/2000

¶8

PETITIONER: -------------------

¶9

THE SECRETARY, KERALA PLANTATION WORKERS' UNION, (CITU), NELLIYAMPATHY. (M.R.VASU, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 55).

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

PRINCE P. PATTASSERY, S/O. PUNNOOSE PATTASSERY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, (MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALEXANDRIA PLANTATIONS (P) LTD.), PATTASSERY HOUSE, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV.MR.PAULSON C.VARGHESE

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

------------------------------------------ Cont.Case (C)No.1017 of 2006 -----------------------------------------Dated, this the 25^th day of July, 2007

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶20

Alleging that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.11287 of 2004 in O.P.No.18293 of 2000 dated 21^st December, 2004, the complainant is before us in this contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, requesting us to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent and punish him for the wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.

¶21

(2) Notice of this petition was ordered to be issued and served on the respondent. The contemnor has entered appearance through his counsel.

¶22

(3) The learned counsel appearing for the contemnor would submit that the respondent has substantially complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court by issuing two cheques to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶23

(4) In view of this development, in our opinion, there is substantial compliance with the orders and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, we need not to have proceeded further in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings require to be dropped and they are dropped. Liberty is

¶24

Cont.Case (C)No.1017/2006

¶25

¶26

reserved to the complainant to approach this Court if need arises in future.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶30

vns

The Secretary, Kerala Plantation Workers v. Prince.P.Pattassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Kerala Plantation Workers v. Prince.P.Pattassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Vs Lalithamma Somanathan

Rev.Fr.James Ottethengumkal Vs P.J.Thomas, I.A.S.

K.Ramanan Vs P.K.Sajeevan

N.Ravindra Kurup Vs v.G.Divakaran and Another

A.Padmanabhan Vs K.N.Sreedevi

The Commr. of Incometax, Bangalore Vs the Malabar Industrial Company