Disposed

Satheesh Kumar v. Indhukaladharan

Kerala HC15 Mar 2010Con.Case(C)/303/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found no contempt by the respondent in serving coercive notices, as the petitioners had not complied with the deposit condition under the interim order. Upon subsequent compliance by the petitioners, the contempt proceedings were closed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed. Petitioners may continue to avail the benefit of the interim order following their deposit of the required sum.

Satheesh Kumar Vs Indhukaladharan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 303 of 2010(S)

¶6

---------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5343/2010 DATED 22/02/2010.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

1. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 45 'SATHKALA', TAGORE ROAD, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. MOHANAN, S/O.DASAN,AGED 48 YEARS, SHIBU BHAVAN, TAGORE ROAD, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.J.S.AJITHKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

--------------------------

¶14

INDUKALADHARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN.

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶19

Contempt Case No. 303 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2010.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioners have filed the present 'Contempt of Court Case' stating that the respondent has paid only scant regards to Annexure 1 order passed by this Court on 22.2.2010 and coercive proceedings have been taken by affixing Annexure 2 and 3 notices at the residence of the petitioner, much after passing the interim

¶23

order of stay.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the dates of Annexure 2 and 3 notices have been shown as 10.2.2010, the steps taken by the respondent causing the same to be affixed at the building of the petitioners were after communicating Anneuxre A1 interim order passed by this Court which is very much contumacious and is liable to be proceed against, under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. The respondent has filed an affidavit explaining the actual facts and figures, submitting that there is absolutely no attempt to disobey the orders passed by this Court at any point of time. It is also

¶25

¶26

Contempt Case No. 303 of 2010

¶27

brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have not complied with the condition imposed by this Court vide Annexure 1 interim order by depositing a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, so as to avail the benefit of the interim order.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader submits that it was very much after filing of the Contempt of Court Case, that the condition has been complied with by effecting the deposit on 6.3.2010. It is also asserted that no further coercive proceedings are being pursued in view of Annexure 1 interim order.

¶29

Taking note of the facts and figures, this Court finds that

¶30

there is failure on the part of the petitioners in satisfying the condition imposed by this Court in Annexure 1 interim order and that there is no contumacious act on the part of the respondent in any manner. However, since the petitioners have complied with the direction by effecting the deposit on 6.3.2010, the petitioners will continue to avail the benefit of interim order.

¶31

The Contempt of Court Case is closed.

¶32

Sd/P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

//True Copy//

Satheesh Kumar v. Indhukaladharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Kumar v. Indhukaladharan

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

Suresh Vs District Collector, Thrissur and Others

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Annakutty

Suja Mohan and Others Vs State Bank of Travancore and Another

Mukundan P.P. Vs District Collector

C.M.Noordeen and Others Vs Union Bank of India & Another

Madhu Vs M/S Punjab National Bank & Another