Ushadevi v. Paul Antony
Case brief
What is this about?
A single paragraph order disposing of a review petition in a contempt case related to the disbursement of retirement benefits. The court found no grounds for review after submissions clarified the bond requirement was merely expedient.
What did the court decide?
Review petition disposed with directions that retirement benefits be disbursed immediately upon execution of the bond without delay.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930
RP.No. 41 of 2009() ------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN COC.1396/2008 Dated 16/10/2008
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN C.O.C.(PETITIONER IN THE WPC)
USHADEVI.P, W/O.D.BAHULEYAN,AGED 56 YRS, RETIRED ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,S.C.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RESIDING AT 'BUDS' MAYYANAD.P.O, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN C.O.C.(RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.)
- SRI.PAUL ANTONY AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KERALA,S.C. & S.T.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM.
- SRI.SUKUMARAN,AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,DIRECTOR,S.C.& S.T. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition challenging the judgment regarding disbursement of retirement benefits should be allowed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
UsHadevi.P
- respondent
Sri.Paul Antony
- respondent
Sri.Sukumaran
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court