Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of an interim stay order. Respondent counsel argued implementation occurred before the stay date, so no violation existed. Court dismissed the petition holding no ground to entertain the case.
Petition is dismissed with no ground to entertain.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931
Con.Case(C).No. 1363 of 2009(S)
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.31056/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION:
-------------------------
SABUNATH K.S., AGED 41, S/O.SOMANATH, KOLATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.DEEPAM INDANE SERVICES, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.MR.PRAVEEN K. JOY MR.ADEEP ANWAR MR.ABHILASH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 3,4 & 5 IN WPC:
-------------------------
1. S.CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(LPG INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.
2. SHEKAR BABU, AGED ABOUT 50, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, IOC, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.
3. N.SHIVADAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKKODE.
BY MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC I.O.C.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
Contempt Case (C) No. 1363 of 2009 - S ---------------------------------------Dated 13th November, 2009
Judgment
Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited submits that two days prior to the date on which the Annexure I interim order was passed, pursuant to Ext.P17 order that was impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner's customers were linked to the agency mentioned in Ext.P17. He submits that as the interim order was passed only thereafter, there has been no violation. A reading of Annexure I indicates that this Court did not intend to stay the operation of Ext.P17 unconditionally. This Court had only directed that if Ext.P17 has not been implemented as on 2.11.2009, the status quo as on that day shall be maintained. Since the order impugned in the writ petition was implemented two days prior to the date on which Annexure I interim order was passed, I do not see any ground to entertain this contempt case. It is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge
vaa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there was a violation of the interim order as the impugned implementation occurred two days prior to the stay order.
SABUNATH K.S.
S.CHANDRAN
SHEKAR BABU
N.SHIVADAS
P.N.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
