Disposed

R.Ramesh v. Vijayalakshmi

Kerala HC24 Oct 2008Con.Case(C)/1351/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the case should be closed referencing paragraph 5 of the respondent's affidavit. The court accepted this submission and closed the contempt proceedings relying on the facts recorded therein.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed upon recording submissions regarding the disposal of the underlying writ petition claim.

R.Ramesh Vs Vijayalakshmi — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1351 of 2008(S)

¶6

-----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27689/2005 Dated 04/06/2007 ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------------------------------------

¶9

R.RAMESH, S/O.PAZHANANKUTTY, 39 YEARS OF AGE, KOTHODEKALAM, VEMBALLOOR P.O. THENKURRUSSI -II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:

¶12

------------------------------------------------

¶13

SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L/R), (LAND TRIBUNAL), OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case 1351 of 2008

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2008.

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of paragraph 5 of the affidavit submitted by the respondent, her contempt case may be closed. Accordingly contempt case is closed recording the submission in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit which reads thus:

¶21

“5. Since no suo moto case is pending before this Tribunal in the name of the writ petitioner, his claim for getting the Certificate of purchase was disposed off by the Tribunal as per order NO. 519/07, dated 26.9.2008 with liberty to file fresh suo moto case in this Office. A true copy of the order is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R (a). Accordingly, direction was issued to the Village Officer, Thenkurussi II & the Special Revenue Inspector of this Office for initiating the suo moto case in the name of the writ petitioner if he is eligible for assignment U/S.72 of KLR Act.”

¶22

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶23

rhs

R.Ramesh v. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramesh v. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S. Allure Impex, Mumbai

N.U.Sabu Vs Dist.Collector

Adat Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala

V.M.Raju Vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar, IPS

M/S.Friends Coconut Industries Vs the Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Tea Tec Exports,Cochin Vs the Tea Board,Calcutta