Dismissed

Najeeb v. a Ansari

Kerala HC22 Aug 2014Con.Case(C)/1513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding connected to a writ petition regarding a denied payment claim, the court dismissed the contempt charge. The judge held open the petitioners substantive right to seek remedy against the order denying the claim but closed the specific contempt case against him.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed/dismissed; petitioner left open to seek remedy against the order denying his payment claim.

Najeeb Vs a Ansari — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/31ST SRAVANA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 1513 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).35310/2010

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35310/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-11-2012 PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONER IN WPC.NO.35310/2010.: ------------------------------------------------------NAJEEB, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.VAHAB, TC NO.4/635, FATHIMAM SREEVILAS LANE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC.NO.35310/2010.: ------------------------------------------------------------1. A ANSARI, SECRETARY, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. NIVETHITHA P.HARAN, DITECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SC, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT

¶8

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶11

C.O.(C) No. 1513 of 2013

¶12

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶13

DATED THIS THE 22ND AUGUST, 2014

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

By Annexure A judgment, this Court directed the first respondent

¶16

to take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs.2,30,444/-.

¶17

The stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit dated 24.3.2014, a copy of which is made available before this Court, is that the petitioner is not entitled for the disbursement of the said amount because of certain omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, according to them. It is stated that Annexure R2 is a communication issued to the petitioner in that regard. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the disputes between the parties. Since Annexure R2 order has been issued to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved, he can take recourse to appropriate remedy.

¶18

Leaving open the above remedy, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶19

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶20

kav/

Najeeb v. a Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeeb v. a Ansari

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

Raphel Vs Sree Narayana Samajam

Makesh P.R Vs Remya K.R

Thomas Vs Annamma @ Santhamma

Anishamol C. Vs Aboobacker

T.K.Sasikumar Vs Vijayakumar

G.Somarajan Vs Shri. James Varghese