In a contempt of court case arising from a communication alleged to violate an interim stay on salary recovery, the court closed the proceeding as the matter was subsequently challenged in a writ petition.
Contempt case closed.
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 K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 86 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22906/2008 Dated 28/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------BINDU THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. K.P.ANILKUMAR, TECHINICIALN GRADE-I, MODEL POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, MALA, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------
PROF. V.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR, I.H.R.D., REVENUE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
K.T.SANKARAN, J .
Con.Case(C).No.86 of 2011
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011
JUDGMENT
As per the order dated 28th January, 2009, in WP(C)
No.22906 of 2008, interim stay was extended staying the
recovery of the excess salary allegedly drawn by the
petitioner. Later, as per Annexure-A3 communication was
issued by the respondent to the Principal of the College,
requesting the latter not to sanction further increment to
the petitioner, until the interim stay is vacated by the
High Court. According to the petitioner, Annexure-3 amounts
to contempt of court and violation of the interim order
dated 28th January, 2009.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
subsequently Annexure-3 has been challenged by the
petitioner in a Writ Petition and therefore, it is not
necessary to prosecute the Contempt Case. The Contempt Case
is, accordingly, closed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms
BINDU THOMAS
PROF. V.SUBRAMANI
K.T.SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court