Dismissed

Murali.K.Sreedhar v. Lambodaran Nair

Kerala HC23 Jul 2010Con.Case(C)/685/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition challenging non-compliance of directions in WP(C) No.9926/2010 concerning a club's General Body meeting and elections, the court found that directions were substantially complied with. It held that technical delays or alleged irregularities do not warrant contempt proceedings, directing the petitioner to seek remedies in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition is closed.

Murali.K.Sreedhar Vs Lambodaran Nair — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 685 of 2010(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9926/2010 Dated 29/03/2010

¶7

PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT

¶8

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

¶9

SRI.MURALI K.SREEDHAR,SREEDHARA COLLEGE, SANTHEETH NAGAR-234 NEAR MRS BUILDING,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------

¶12

LAMBODARAN NAIR.P.K,IPS (RETIRED), AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER HONORARY SECRETARY,MANNAM MEMORIAL NATIONAL CLUB, REGISTERED NO.268/1991,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN FOR R

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt Case (C) NO. 685 OF 2010 (S)

¶16

============================

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2010

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

In this petition, what is complained of is non compliance with the directions in Annexure 1 judgment in WP(C) No.9926/2010. In para 16 of the judgment, this Court directed that the General Body meeting of the Mannam Memorial National Club, Thiruvananthapuram shall be held, that proceedings against the 4^th respondent should be completed, and if necessary, fresh election to the post of Treasurer shall be held without any further delay. It was directed that these processes should be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month of the date of the judgment.

¶20

Petitioner submits that though the General Body was held as directed, proceedings against him were not finalised, and therefore in that sense, the judgment has not been complied with.

¶21

However, the case of the respondents as disclosed from the counter affidavit is that pursuant to the directions in the judgment, notices were issued to all members and the

¶22

COC No.685/2010

¶23

:2 :

¶24

General Body was held on 16/5/2010. It is also stated that, subsequently, petitioner has been removed from the membership of the Club and that in the General Body Meeting held on 11/7/2010, a new Treasurer has also been elected. Therefore, according to the Club, the direction in the judgment have been complied with within the time as extended as per the order in IA No.5063/10.

¶25

Substantially, the directions in the judgment have been complied with, and at best, it may be a case where the time limit has not been complied with, for which I do not think it necessary to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶26

If in the General Body meeting held, or in the election to the post of Treasurer, any irregularity has been committed by the Club, that is not an issue which is covered by the judgment, and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he will have to seek his remedies before the Civil Court. I am not persuaded to think that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are warranted.

¶27

Contempt Petition is closed.

¶28

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶29

Murali.K.Sreedhar v. Lambodaran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali.K.Sreedhar v. Lambodaran Nair

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

K.K.Abdul Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

G.Sudheendran Vs State of Kerala

Shandeep Kakkarayil Vs State of Kerala

P. Ratheesan Vs United Electrical Industries

Arun P.v.Uthaman Vs State of Kerala

K.T.George Vs Autokast Ltd.