In a finally heard contempt case, the court closed the matter as agreed by the petitioner's counsel since the disputed amounts had been disbursed and the in-principal petitioner died, with the case closed without prejudice to the legal heirs' rights.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 806 of 2010(S)
-------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19364/2008 Dated 30/07/2008
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
1. K.P.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.VELU EZHUTHACHAN, 66 YEARS, 'ANAMIKA', KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, POST PAZHAYANNUR.
2. Y.KRISHNAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, 63 YEARS, AMBADY HOUSE, MUDUVARA, POST PUZHAKKAL.
3. E.J.JOHNY, S/O.E.D.JACOB, 66 YEARS, EDAKKULATHOOR HOUSE, SANTHY NAGAR, POST NEDUMPARA.
4. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.K.KUNHAMAN, 66 YEARS, KARANCHIRA HOUSE, POST NEDUMPUZHA.
5. K.R.SREEMATHY,
W/O.LATE SHRI.T.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, THEKKOOT KALARIKKAL HOUSE, POST KANIMANGALAM.
BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI
.......2/-....
...2...
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT) CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.
*** ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED**
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SVS/
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------------------------Contempt Case NO. 806 OF 2010
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts due to the petitioners 1 and 2 have already been disbursed and since the 3rd petitioner is no more, the legal heirs have been directed to produce documents proving their right for disbursal of the amount. Therefore, Contempt Case is closed as agreed by the counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice to the right of the legal heirs of the 3rd petitioner to prove the matter before the respondents.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
mns
K.P.SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
