This court dismissed a contempt petition filed alleging disobedience of a previous order requiring the respondent to forward a document. The court found the respondent had complied with the direction, causing the contempt petition to fail.
Contempt petition dismissed as the respondent had complied with the court's direction.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930
Con.Case(C).No. 242 of 2009(S)
-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4088/2009 Dated 09/02/2009
PETITIONER/PETITIONER(S):
----------------------------------
INDHUKALA CHANDRALAL C, D/O. CHANDRALA, AGED 19 YEARS, CHIRATHARA, CMC-6, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER
RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------
C.CHANDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL , N.S.S. COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.
ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==============
Cont.Case(C) NO. 242 OF 2009 (S)
=======================
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions in the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.4088/09, by which this Court directed that the respondents shall forward Ext.P4 with his recommendations to the University. According to the petitioner, it was this order that is allegedly not complied with by the respondent warranting proceedings against him.
COC No.242/09
:2 :
prescribed form for condonation of shortage of attendance and the copy of the application is Annexure R(c). It is stated that when R(c) application was delivered in the office, the respondent was on leave and the person in charge of office filled up the column provided for recommendation of the Principal and after affixing signature, delivered the application to the petitioner herself for submitting to the University for necessary orders. Acknowledgment has also been given by the petitioner in Ext.R (d), where her endorsement is dated 24/2/2009. Thus not only that the respondent has complied with the direction in the judgment, but even Ext.R(c) application has been attended to by his office with due expedition.
Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act and the contempt petition will therefore stand dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has made out any case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent alleging non-compliance of an earlier court direction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
INDHUKALA CHANDRALAL C
C.CHANDRAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
