Disposed

M.M.Aliyar v. Benny

Kerala HC14 Mar 2013Con.Case(C)/848/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court proceeding under W.P.(C).18528/2009, the Court observed that while the respondents denied knowledge of the police complaint, disputes were pending before a Civil Court. Consequently, the case was closed without prejudice, reserving the option for the petitioner to approach the Sub Inspector of Police or Municipality for any specific judgment violation.

What did the court decide?

Case closed without prejudice to the petitioners bringing up specific violations before the Sub Inspector of Police or Municipality.

M.M.Aliyar Vs Benny — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 848 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).18528/2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/7/2009 IN WP(C).18528/2009

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC :

¶8

M.M.ALIYAR AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN, MELAYIL HOUSE, THANKALAMKARA, THIKARIYUR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 :

¶11

1. BENNY, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) S/O.VARGHESE, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, KARUKADOM, P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM - 683 334..

¶12

2. VARGHESE (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) S/O.PAILY, PAZHUKALIL HOUSE, THENGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM - 683 334.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

AMV

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 848 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).18528/2009

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURE :

¶19

ANNEXURE AI : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/7/2009 IN W.P.(C) No.18528 of 2009. ANNEXURE AII : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 23/04/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE. ANNEXURE AIII : COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 26/04/2012.

¶20

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

.................................................................... Cont. Case (Civil) No.848 of 2012 IN W.P.(C) No.18528 of 2009

¶26

.................................................................... Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2013.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The private respondents in the writ petition against whom this complaint for initiating action for contempt of court has been filed, have filed counter affidavit controverting the allegation and saying that they are not aware of any police complaint. Having regard to the nature of directions in the judgment dated 23/7/2009 in W.P. (C) No.18528 of 2009 and the fact that disputes between the parties are also pending before the Civil Court, this Contempt Case is closed without prejudice to the petitioners bringing up the matter before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam or the Kothamangalam Municipality, if there is any specific violation of the terms of the judgment issued in W.P.(C) No.18528 of 2009. This will, however, be without prejudice to contentions of either side in any litigation pending before the Civil Court.

¶29

sd/(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶30

AMV

M.M.Aliyar v. Benny

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Aliyar v. Benny

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

Reji Jose Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Southern Ispat Limited

State of Kerala Vs Mrs.Lilly Stellal

Stephen Abraham Vs Government of Kerala and Another

E.G.Remanan Vs Smt. Marykutty C.P

Sajith Bhaliga Vs Paul