Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a prior judgment. Respondent submitted that an order of compliance had been passed. The court allowed the case. Petitioner is directed to seek remedies against the compliance order.
Contempt petition allowed; petitioner can seek remedies against the compliance order.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933
Con.Case(C).No. 533 of 2010(S)
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18890/2007 Dated 03/02/2009
PETITIONER / PETITINER IN WPC :
---------------------------------------------------
T.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, THAYAMBATH HOUSE, KELOTHU, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.
BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA
RESPONDENTS / 2ND RESPONDENTS IN WPC :
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMIN J. THACHENKERY,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKKODE.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 VIDE ORDER DT. 21.7.2010 IN I.A. NO. 300/10.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE BY ADV. SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Con.Case(C).No. 533 of 2010(S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S
ANNEXURE AI : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/2/2009 IN WP(C) 18890/2007 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case (C) NO. 533 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The contempt petition has been filed on the allegation that further action based on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.18890/07 has not been taken. On behalf of the additional 2nd respondent, who has been subsequently impleaded by order dated 21/7/2010 submits that he has been wrongly impleaded and he has nothing to do with the writ petition.
Now that such an order has been passed, the contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the said order, if he is aggrieved by the same.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be allowed given that an order was passed in compliance with the earlier judgment.
Whether the petitioner can pursue remedies against the compliance order.
T.PURUSHOTHAMAN
TOMIN J. THACHENKERY
MR. SUDHESH KUMAR
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
