Dismissed

Santha Gopinathan v. Dr.S.Raveendran

Kerala HC13 Feb 2013Con.Case(C)/238/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed this contempt petition, holding that the respondent's rejection of a benefit claim did not violate prior judicial directions. The petitioner was told to challenge the rejection order in appropriate proceedings instead.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the rejection order in appropriate proceedings.

Santha Gopinathan Vs Dr.S.Raveendran — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 238 of 2013 (S) ---------------------------------IN WP(C).21540/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-10-2012

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶7

SHANTHA GOPINATHAN, W/O.M.G.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MATHUKAL HOUSE, KULANADA.P.O., PATHANAMTHTITA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.H.HAMZA RAWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/IST RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

¶10

DR.S.RAVEENDRAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK.

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rvs.

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 238 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).21540/2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE	I : CERTIFIED COPY OF HIGH COURT OF KERA	THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE LA IN WP(C) NO.21540/2012.
ANNEXURE	II : TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL MANAGER UN	LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DER RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	III : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE	REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	IV : TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL MANAGER UN	LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DER RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	V : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE	REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	VI : TRUE COPY OF THE FOR THE PETITIONER	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	VII : TRUE COPY OF THE R	EPLY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

/True Copy/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

C.O(C) No.238 of 2013

¶26

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner contending that by issuing Annexure-VII order, the respondent has disobeyed the directions in Annexure-A1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(c) No.21540 of 2012. Reading of the judgment shows that this Court has only directed consideration of the representation made by the petitioner for the benefit of Aswas Scheme, 2012. Accordingly, the respondent considered the claim and rejected the benefit sought for.

¶29

In my view, such an order passed by the respondent, does not reflect any violation of the directions of this Court and on the other hand, if the order is illegal for any reason, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

¶30

Therefore, in the absence of any case of contempt being made out by the petitioner, I close this Contempt Case without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure-VII order.

¶31

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶32

Santha Gopinathan v. Dr.S.Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha Gopinathan v. Dr.S.Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran Nair Vs Branch Manager, Central Bank of India

K.Subramanian Vs State Bank of India

Tinto P.P. Vs State Bank of India

Kurian and Varghese Vs the Chief Engineer

Premraj P. Vs M.C.Mohan Kumar

The Engineer - in - Chief Vs Kurian and Varghese