P.Hamza and Another v. Jolly Varghese
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt of court case, the High Court of Kerala closed the proceedings because the respondent claimed compliance with previous directions left remedies open for petitioners. The court made no substantive finding on the merits.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case of C. 680 of 2010 closed upon respondent's claim of compliance.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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
FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 680 of 2010(S)
-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37680/2009 Dated 20/01/2010
PETITIONER(S): /PETITIONERS
- P.HAMZA, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 49 YEARS, PUNNAKKADAN HOUSE, PANDIKADU, NELLIKUTTU P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
- U.P.UMMER, S/O.PAKKER, AGED 45 YEARS, ULLATTUPARA HOUSE, PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MANJERI.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT(S): /1ST RESPONDENT
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P.HAMZA
- petitioner
U.P.UMMER
- respondent
JOLLY VARGHESE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court