Disposed
K.Madhukumar v. K.N.Satheesh
Kerala HCCon.Case(C)/1371/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936
Con.Case(C).No. 1371 of 2013 (S) IN OP(Crl.).217/2012 ------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(Crl.) 217/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-02-2012
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
K.MADHUKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.M.KUNJUNNI PILLAI, SANTHI NIVAS, KOLLOOR LANE KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
K.N.SATHEESH, DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 1371 of 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2012 IN O.P(CRL.) NO.217/2012.
ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2014
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ab
P.UBAID, J.
----------------------------------------------Contempt Case (C)No.1371 of 2013
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Violation of this Court's order is alleged in this Contempt proceedings. On hearing both sides, I find that this matter does not involve any such situation of civil contempt because the direction is only to pass appropriate orders. Now it is submitted that the respondent has already passed orders. I find no necessity to proceed with this matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the proceeding could be closed.
In the result, this contempt proceeding will stand
closed.
P.UBAID JUDGE
ab
K.MADHUKUMAR
K.N.SATHEESH
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court