Brijith v. Venugopal
Case brief
What is this about?
This Court rejected the contempt petition for disobedience of orders in WP(C) No.33956/2005, holding that the petitioner should have first reported the inaction to senior police officers. Liberty was reserved for future approach if necessary.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner ordered to report inaction to senior police officers before future approach; liberty reserved.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2007 / 21ST ASHADHA 1929
Con.Case(C).No. 990 of 2007(S)
ARISING FROM THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.33956/2005 Dated 23/12/2005
PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER
BRIJITH, S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, VRIDAVANAM, THONANKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
- VENUGOPAL, WORKING AS CIRCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH STATION.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be relieved of the duty to approach senior police officers regarding the inaction of respondents before filing this contempt petition.
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable in the absence of prior notice to seniors.
How to dispose of the contempt petition while reserving liberty for future approach.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Brijith
- respondent
Venugopal
- respondent
Sibichan Joseph
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court