C.R.Joseph v. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged an interim stay order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The court held that since the Tribunal subsequently allowed the respondent's appeal and the stay order had lapsed, the writ petition became infructuous and was dismissed.
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 P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932
WP(C).No. 19836 of 2010(D) -------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------
C.R.JOSEPH, S/O. ROBERT, AGED 47 YEARS, CHINGANTARA HOUSE, KOTTUVALLY, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.X.SHAM JOSEPH SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.SANDHYAVENI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
- M/S. INDUS TOWERS LTD., VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682024. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
- KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLUVALLY KOONAMMAVU.P.O., ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R2 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R2 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR R2 SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD FOR R2 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR R2 SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL FOR R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.19836/2010
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the interim stay order became infructuous consequentially to the final order passed by the Tribunal in the underlying appeal.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
C.R.JOSEPH
- respondent
M/S. INDUS TOWERS LTD.
- respondent
KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court