Dismissed

V.J.Joseph v. Jai Singh & Another

Kerala HC13 Mar 2008Con.Case(C)/404/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an interim order. The court held that without any material evidence supporting the complaint of continued revenue recovery proceedings by the respondents, it could not initiate contempt proceedings, though liberty was reserved for the future.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was rejected for the present due to lack of evidence.

V.J.Joseph Vs Jai Singh & Another — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 404 of 2008(S)

¶5

--------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO..278/2008 IN MACA.197/2008 Dated 05/02/2008 ....................

¶6

PETITIONER /PETITIONER:-

¶7

¶8

V.J.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, VELAYIL HOUSE, ALUMTHURUTHY P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS :-

¶11

¶12

SRI.JAI SINGH,

¶13

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA.

¶14

SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,

¶15

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶16

KAVUMBAGAM, THIRUVALLA.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN.

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶20

------------------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (Civil) No.404 of 2008-S

¶21

¶22

Dated, this the 13^th day of March, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶25

Alleging that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court in I.A.No.278 of 2008 in M.A.C.A.No.197 of 2008 dated 5^th February, 2008, the appellant in the appeal has presented this contempt petition.

¶26

(2). Along with the contempt petition, the petitioner has produced Annexure-I (Interim order) and Annexure-2 (Letter of the learned counsel dated 4^th March, 2008).

¶27

(3). It is the allegation of the complainant/petitioner in this contempt petition that, in spite of there being an interim order passed by this Court the respondents are continuing with the revenue recovery proceedings.

¶28

(4). In support of that assertion, the complainant/petitioner has not produced any material before this Court. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the allegations made in the contempt petition, we will not be in a position to initiate any proceedings much less contempt proceedings against the respondents. In that view of the matter, we reject the contempt petition, for the present. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant/petitioner to approach this Court, if need arises in future.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶32

V.J.Joseph v. Jai Singh & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.J.Joseph v. Jai Singh & Another

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

State of Kerala Vs Sri.Thomas George

Santhosh Kumar Vs M.Rajan

Handicapped Association Vs State of Kerala

V.Sudharsanan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Mathew Vs Mathaichan Mathew

Kerala State Electricity Board, Vs Navartna Rice Products, Neeleswaram P.O.