Disposed

Sarikrishna v. Abdul Rahman

Kerala HC9 Mar 2011Con.Case(C)/299/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court closed a contempt case regarding a judgment in WP(C) No.34200/2010. The court held that with the review petition disposed of, no further proceedings were necessary, allowing petitioners to approach the court again if the review order is not complied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with liberty to approach the court again if the review order is not complied with.

Sarikrishna Vs Abdul Rahman — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 299 of 2011(S) --------------------------------------------(THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/11/2010 IN WP(C)NO.34200/2010)

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶7

1. SARI KRISHNA, LPSA, MANNAM MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, NARIAMPARA, R/A.CHIRAKARA HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI P.O., KATTAPPANA.

¶8

2. JISHA M.G., LPSA, MANNAM MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, NARIAMPARA, R/A.MULAKKAL PATTATHIL HOUSE, CHIRAKADAVU CENTRE P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI. R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT. SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI V.A.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 54, S/O. NOTKNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.B. RAMANAND

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶17

Cont.Case(C).No.299 OF 2011

¶18

Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The Writ Petitioners in WP(C) No.34200 of 2010

¶21

have filed this Contempt Case alleging that the
respondent willfully and deliberately violated the
directions contained in the judgment. The Contempt
Case was filed on 7.3.2011. Before that date, on
23.2.2011, the respondent and others had filed
R.P.No.156 of 2011 seeking to review the judgment.

¶22

The Review Petition has been disposed of today. In
the light of the order in the Review Petition, it
is not necessary to proceed with the Contempt Case.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed with
liberty to the petitioners to approach this court
again if the order in the Review Petition is not
complied with.

¶23

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶24

cms

Sarikrishna v. Abdul Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarikrishna v. Abdul Rahman

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

I.Pathrose Vs Binil K.John & Another

Nazarene Fernando @ Nachi Vs State of Kerala

Sulochana M. & Others Vs the Taluk Land Board & Another

Arun Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Roby Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs State