The court held a contempt petition filed over a year after the impugned order was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, relying on Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla which distinguished earlier precedent.
Contempt petition dismissed on grounds of limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933
Con.Case(C).No. 459 of 2011(S)
------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15501/2009
PETITIONER / PETITIONER :
FRANCIS STANLEY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.STANLY, KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, PALLIPORT P.O., MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI MS. SMITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS / 1ST RESPONDENT :
SMT.P.K.NALINI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF RE-SURVEY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682030.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
Cont. Case (C) No . 459 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 04th July , 2011
JUDGMENT
This Contempt of Court case has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in respect of Annexure A verdict. In fact, the very maintainability of the petition was doubted the last time and the petitioner was confronted with the question of limitation, when the decision rendered by this Court in Mayilswami Vs. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KL 178) was cited at the Bar. But, it was held by the subsequent Full Bench in Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla (2007 (2) KLT 171) that the earlier decision
rendered by this Court was not at all good law, in view of the omission to have made a reference to the law declared by the Apex Court on the point, holding that the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act will be attracted, if it is filed after one year from the relevant date.
Cont. Case (C) No. 459 of 2011
: 2 :
prescribed period of limitation. Annexure A judgment is dated 17.06.2009, whereas the present contempt petition has been filed only on 06.04.2011.
In the said circumstances, no interference is possible. It is dismissed accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition filed after one year from the date of the impugned order is maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the petitioner's application is barred by limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mayilswami Vs. State of KeralaDissented from¶21
(1995 (2) KL 178)
Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam AbdullaRelied on¶21
(2007 (2) KLT 171)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
FRANCIS STANLEY
SMT.P.K.NALINI
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
