Dismissed

Indiradevi Amma v. Mr. C.K.Gopalan, Rdo, Kollam

Kerala HC2 Apr 2008Con.Case(C)/1552/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court matter, petitioner counsel was absent. Despite an affidavit filed by the respondents, the court found it unsatisfactory regarding actions taken on an alleged violation of a prohibitory order. The court directed respondents to report action taken within a week.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to report action taken on violation of prohibitory order within a week; matter listed for further proceedings.

Indiradevi Amma Vs Mr. C.K.Gopalan, Rdo, Kollam — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 1552 of 2007(S) ------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.20016/2007 DATED 29/6/2007

¶5

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

INDIRADEVI AMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. K.SUKUMARA PILLAI, KUTTILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU P.O.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.SONIYA.M

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN THE WPC:

¶10

¶11

MR. C.K.GOPALAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶12

SMT. RAJESWARY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶13

SMT. CHELLAMMA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶14

MR. AJITHKUMAR,

¶15

(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶19

=======================

¶20

Con. Case No. 1552 of 2007(S)

¶21

=======================

¶22

Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner absent. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent, I do not think that any further action is necessary. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.

¶25

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

=======================

¶30

Con. Case (C) No. 1552 of 2007 =======================

¶31

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Although an affidavit has been filed, the same is not at all satisfactory. In Annexure R1(a) the Tahasildar himself stated that at least one person has violated the prohibitory order. Nothing is mentioned in the affidavit as to what the respondents have done against him. The respondents shall report as to what action has been taken at least in respect of the violation which is stated in Ext.R1(a).

¶34

Post after a week.

¶35

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶36

Indiradevi Amma v. Mr. C.K.Gopalan, Rdo, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indiradevi Amma v. Mr. C.K.Gopalan, Rdo, Kollam

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

Y.Thankamma Menon Vs the D.E.O.

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Ompany Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

E.K.Narayanan Vs the Recovery Officer,Debt Recovery

M.Balasubramoniam Vs Mr.T.K.Jose

Ajith Murali Vs Joseph and Another

K.a.Annamma Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam