Dismissed

M.P.Rappai v. Thomas Joseph

Kerala HC2 Feb 2011Con.Case(C)/100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed after a single-day hearing, the court observed that since the order was issued in compliance with the impugned judgment, no contempt was committed. The petitioner was directed to seek remedy against the order via appropriate proceedings rather than through contempt proceedings. The case was closed without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; petitioner directed to work out remedy against the order.

M.P.Rappai Vs Thomas Joseph — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 100 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------------[JUDGMENT DTD. 06/10/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.30674/2010]

¶5

PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): -----------------------------------------------------------

¶6

M.P.RAPPAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MECHERIL PAULOSE, MECHERIL HOUSE, PUDUKKAD P.O., TRICHUR.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR.

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

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

¶10

THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR.

¶11

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH.

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

prv.

¶14

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶15

Contempt Case(C) No. 100 of 2011

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2011

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

By Annexure-1 judgment in W.P(C)

¶19

No.30674/2010, the respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in Ext.P9 therein, in the light of Exts.P1, P3 and P4 reports. Accordingly, request was considered and Annexure-5 order has been issued. It is on receipt of the said order, the Contempt case has been filed.

¶20

The contention raised by the petitioner is that the order has been issued without referring to the reports. A reading of the order shows that the respondent has taken the view that the aforesaid reports have relevance only in so far as extraction of sand is concerned and had no relevance in the context of the case of the petitioner for extraction of clay.

¶21

Irrespective of the correctness of the view taken in the order now issued, now that the said order has been issued in compliance with the judgment, this Court will not be

¶22

COC No.100/2011

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

justified in concluding that any contempt has been committed. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is to work out

¶25

his remedy against the aforesaid order.

¶26

Without prejudice to that liberty, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶27

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶28

aks

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

P.A. To Judge

M.P.Rappai v. Thomas Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Rappai v. Thomas Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya K.B. Vs P.Jayakumar

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others Vs Shaji Mathew and Others

Ninan Varghese Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Basil.T.K Vs T.P.Senkumar

Suresh.K. Vs Manoj

State of Kerala Vs Ayyappan