Disposed

P.M.Veerankutty Master v. Rajesh Gopal

Kerala HC5 Jan 2009Con.Case(C)/1321/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a contempt petition where the respondent admitted passing an order without hearing parties despite directions. The court allowed the respondent to reinstate the order after hearing parties but held him personally liable for costs as a penalty for initial non-compliance and expressed displeasure at his conduct.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed. The respondent is ordered to pay Rs.7,500/- as costs to the petitioner out of his pocket within one month.

P.M.Veerankutty Master Vs Rajesh Gopal — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1321 of 2008(S) ------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21336/2002 Dated 11/07/2008 ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

P.M. VEERANKUTTY MASTER, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, AGED 87 YEARS, PRESIDENT, PULIKKAL KAVAKI BUNNAYYIRA SANGHAM NO.6 OF 1962, PULIKKAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

RAJESH GOPAL, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM, KERALA.

¶11

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

V.GIRI, J

¶14

Contempt Case (C).1321/2008

¶15

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2009

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Going by the affidavit filed by the respondent, in

¶18

which he has admitted that he proceeded to pass an order without hearing the parties, in spite of the specific directions issued in this regard, an inference that the directions issued in the judgment have not been complied with, is perfectly justified. Pursuant to the observations made by this Court on an earlier occasion, after this Contempt of Court case itself was instituted, and presumably on advice made by the learned Government Pleader, respondent proceeded to pass a fresh order, after hearing the parties. Mr.George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the exercise so undertaken by the respondent is only an attempt to make it appear that he has proceeded to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The subsequent order passed by the respondent is the subject matter of independent challenge before this Court.

¶19

I am of the view that the facts stated above as are discernible from the pleadings, would suggest that the

¶20

C.O.C.1321/2008

¶21

¶22

initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act will be justified. But paying heed to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and taking note of the fact that the order subsequently passed by the respondent is independently challenged, I refrain from doing so, but this is on condition that the respondent pays an amount of Rs.7,500/- as costs to the petitioner. It is made clear that he shall pay the same out of his pocket and shall not try to pass it off as the liability of the Office of the District Registrar. I also express displeasure of this Court on the conduct of the respondent. It is upto the department to take appropriate action in this regard. Costs shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which the petitioner may produce before the respondent.

¶23

Subject to the above, Contempt of Court case is closed.

¶24

V.GIRI, Judge

¶25

mrcs

P.M.Veerankutty Master v. Rajesh Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Veerankutty Master v. Rajesh Gopal

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

K.K.Jayan Vs the R.T.a., Malappuram

A.B.Radhakrishna Menon Vs Thuravoor Grama Panchayath

Jaison P.Mathew Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mohanachandran Vs K.B.Valasalakumari

Saraswathi Amma Lathakumari Vs B.Baby

C.Chandran Nair Vs K.M.Chandukutty