Dismissed

Gracy Kurian v. Dr.P.K.Pokker

Kerala HC9 Feb 2009Con.Case(C)/1838/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition regarding non-compliance with notice procedures, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s conduct but dismissed the case finding no necessity to continue proceedings upon acknowledgment of receipt.

What did the court decide?

Paying Rs. 5,000 as costs to the respondent within one month, otherwise subject to recovery via Revenue Recovery Act.

Gracy Kurian Vs Dr.P.K.Pokker — 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 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1838 of 2008(S) ------------------------------{IN WPC.17065/2006 OF THIS COURT} ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

GRACY KURIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. K.C.PETER, VELLOOR PUTHENPURAYIL, SP-V/332, PARUTHYVIOLA LANE, KARIYAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RETD ASSISTANT FOREMAN VIGNAN MUDRANAM, PRESS, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

DR. P.K. POKKER, THE DIRECTOR THE KERALA INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, NALANDA, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC, STATE LANG.INS FOR R

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.GIRI, J.

¶16

C.O.C.No.1838 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2009 .

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Mr.Vijayamohanan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that steps were not taken by the petitioner for taking out notice to the respondent by speed post. In spite of that, the Contempt of Court Case was admitted on 8.1.2009. Nevertheless, taking note of the fact that a direction has been issued, compliance was effected. Mr.Vijayamohanan refers to Ext.R1(a) proceedings dated 13.12.2008, which recorded sanctioning of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and Ext.R1(b), which is a receipt given by the petitioner on 14.1.2009 acknowledging the receipt of an amount of Rs.3,41,478/-. This court expected the petitioner to be present here, to make a submission as regards the events, which have taken place subsequent to the last posting on 8.1.2009. I am constrained to express dissatisfaction with regard to the manner in which the proceedings have, thereafter, been pursued by the petitioner.

¶20

C.O.C.No.1838 of 2008

¶21

:: 2 ::

¶22

I am also satisfied that there is no necessity to continue the Contempt of Court Case. In these circumstances, Contempt of Court Case is dismissed. I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondent. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondent to recover the amounts imposed as costs, if it is not paid within one month from today, by forwarding a copy of this judgment, along with a requisition to the competent District Collector for recovery by resort to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Gracy Kurian v. Dr.P.K.Pokker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gracy Kurian v. Dr.P.K.Pokker

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

P.Sreedharan Vs the State Ofkerala

Anarkaly Vs the Excise Inspector, Vatanappilly Excis

B.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala

Yherian, S/O.Mathew Vs P.K.Santhosh

Joy Thomas Vs P.T. George

K.M.Basheer Vs Sri.S.M.Vijayanandan