Dismissed

A.S.Lenin v. Mr.K.P.Somarajan, M.D., Ksrtc

Kerala HC26 May 2008Con.Case(C)/1571/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioners alleged that the respondent disobeyed prior orders of this Court. The respondent's counsel stated compliance was faithful. The Court accepted this statement, held no reason to disbelieve the counsel, and dropped the present contempt proceedings while reserving liberty to the petitioners for any future grievances.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings are dropped for the present.

A.S.Lenin Vs Mr.K.P.Somarajan, M.D., Ksrtc — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1571 of 2005(S)

¶6

---------------------------------------------AGAINST OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.27258/2001 Dated 14/09/2001

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

¶9

A.S.LENIN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, ANATT HOUSE, P.O.VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

N.M.KURIAKOSE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶11

NJALIYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶12

P.A.SIVANANDAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶13

MARAYIL HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

¶15

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT:

¶16

¶17

MR.K.P.SOMARAJAN (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN.

¶19

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶21

------------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (Civil) No.1571 of 2005-S

¶22

------------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 26^th day of May, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶25

The complainants are before us in this contempt petition, inter alia contending that the respondent has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in O.P.No.27258 of 2001 dated 14-9-2001.

¶26

Sri.Johnson P.John, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instruction, would submit that the respondents have faithfully complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court.

¶27

We have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the learned counsel. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be necessary to proceed with the contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped, for the present. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners/complainants to approach appropriate authorities, if for any reason, they have any other grievances.

¶28

Ordered accordingly.

¶29

(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE

¶31

A.S.Lenin v. Mr.K.P.Somarajan, M.D., Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S.Lenin v. Mr.K.P.Somarajan, M.D., Ksrtc

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

Joseph John Vs Muhammed Haneesh

Wandoor Co.Op.Rural Bank Ltd. Vs Jiji Thomson,Secy.to Govt.Dept.of Co.Ope

A.M.Gopalan Vs the Commr., Hr &Ce (Admn.),Kozhikode