In a contempt proceeding consequent to a writ petition regarding non-disbursal of retirement benefits, the Court held that the first respondent in the writ petition had complied with the direction to forward pension papers. It closed the contempt case without prejudice to further remedies. (0 words)
Contempt case closed without prejudice.
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
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930
Con.Case(C).No. 1137 of 2008(S) --------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8761/2007 DATED 23/05/2008 ....................
PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN WP(C):
----------------------------------------------------
T.V.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, PERINGALA, CHITTADI P.O., ALAKODE VIA., KANNUR 670 571.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WP(C):
---------------------------------------------------------------
V.V.DAMODARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, PADIOTCHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. F 1519, P.O.PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR.
ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Rs/
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Cont.Case(C).No.1137 of 2008-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Annexure-A1 judgment was issued after holding that the first respondent in that writ petition has not shown any sustainable reason for nondisbursal of retiral benefits and also for not forwarding the necessary papers to the Pension Board. The specific direction in the last paragraph of that judgment was, however, only to forward the pension papers. This has been so understood even by the Division Bench when Ext.R1 judgment was issued. The respondent has complied with that direction. It is not within the domain of a contempt of court case to hold otherwise and to state that there is any wilful disobedience or negligence in obeying the condition contained in Annexure-A1 judgment. This contempt of court case is hence closed without prejudice to the right of
COC1137/2008 -: 2 :- the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law even as against Annexure-A1 judgment.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/171008
T.V. Kunhikkannan
V.V. Damodaran
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
