Dennies Augustine v. P.B.Beenamma
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt petition challenging failure to comply with a writ court order to take action on a mutation application, the High Court held that the respondent showed no intentional disobedience as the petitioner did not cooperate in identifying the property. The petition was closed without holding the respondent guilty of contempt.
What did the court decide?
Petition closed; petitioner directed to cooperate with respondent to identify the property for mutation.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 10 of 2011(S)
-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3547/2009 DATED 03/02/2009
PETITIONER/PETITIONER
-------------------------------------DENNIES AUGUSTINE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, NEDUMPARAMPIL, KUMBALANGI SOUTH, KOCHI-07.
BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------
P.BEENAMMA AGE 45 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVANTHANAM, KOCHI-7.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's failure to identify the property for mutation, despite initial claim of inability, constitutes contempt of court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Dennies Augustine
- respondent
P. Beenamma
Coram
Antony Dominic
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court