Dr.M.K.Sushama v. the Accountant General
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt proceedings, the court held that the petitioner could not allege contempt without first executing the directed bond. Consequently, the court declined to continue the proceedings and closed the case, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to execute the bond later. The case has no substantive precedent value.
What did the court decide?
The petitioner is given liberty to execute the bond and seek compliance; the contempt case is closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933
Con.Case(C).No. 358 of 2011(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.143/2011 Dated 28/01/2011 ....................
PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER
DR. M.K.SUSHAMA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. DR. SARANGAPANI, SARANGI, 18/358, N.A.D. P.O., NOCHIMA, ALUVA, PIN-683 563.
BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
- J.MAHALEKSHMI MENON, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E), KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 039.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can be charged with contempt for failing to execute a bond directed by the court when they subsequently claim a separate order has rendered the bond unnecessary.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Dr. M.K. Sushama
- respondent
J. Mahalekshmi Menon
- respondent
Dr. Remani
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court