Dismissed

A.B.Vinodh v. P.M.Francis

Kerala HC14 Mar 2011Con.Case(C)/232/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The contempt court held that since the respondent passed an order complying with the judgment for interim custody, no case for contempt exists. Damages related to vehicle conditions must be pursued through appropriate civil suits. The contempt petition is closed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; claim for damage to vehicles directed to be pursued in appropriate civil suit.

A.B.Vinodh Vs P.M.Francis — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 232 of 2011(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3723/2011 Dated 04/02/2011

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. A.B. VINOD, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, ALPARA HOUSE, THAVALAM.P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶10

2. HAMSA.V.K., S/O. SAYED ALAVI HAJI, AGED 49, VARIKODAM HOUSE, RANDATHANI.P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

P.M.FRANCIS, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUMANGALA

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================

¶18

Cont. Case (C) NO. 232 OF 2011

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2011

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed mainly complaining that despite the directions in the judgment, interim custody of the vehicles mentioned in the judgment are not given.

¶23

When the matter came up today for orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though vehicles have been released, the vehicles are now in a damaged condition. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent is liable to be proceeded against.

¶24

The judgment only required the respondent to pass orders if an application is made for interim custody. From the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners, it is obvious that an order as directed has been passed. Therefore, in view of the said order, there is no case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶25

It is clarified that if the petitioners have a case that any damage has been caused to the vehicles while they were in the

¶26

COC No.232/11

¶27

:2 :

¶28

custody of the respondents in the writ petition, it is upto the petitioners to pursue their claims in appropriate suit,

¶29

Contempt petition is closed.

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶31

A.B.Vinodh v. P.M.Francis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B.Vinodh v. P.M.Francis

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

G.Sasi Vs Jayaprakash

M/S.White Bird Steel India (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) & Ors.

Realtrust Builders (India) Private Ltd. Vs the Kerala Value Added Tax Tribunal

R.Viswanathan Pillai Vs Asst. Registrar and Others

Jayakumar Vs the K.S.E.Board.

V.P.Sarojini Vs Niveditha P.Haran and Others