Disposed

K.K.Jayajith v. Dr.Saji Basheer

Kerala HC11 Nov 2014Con.Case(C)/875/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of a court order fixing a hearing date, the petitioner challenged the failure to communicate a subsequent hearing opportunity. The respondent denied deliberate disregard, citing attendance at both original and rescheduled hearings. Dismissing the current proceedings as unnecessary, the court disposed of this contempt matter without prejudice to a pending w

What did the court decide?

The contempt matter stands disposed of, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the pending writ petition.

K.K.Jayajith Vs Dr.Saji Basheer — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/20TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 875 of 2014 (S)

¶6

WP(C) 5221/2014 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶8

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

¶9

K.K.JAYAJITH S/O KRISHNAN, C/O E.R., RAVI, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANANKULANGARA, KURKENCHERRY PO., THRISSUR-680 007.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2::

¶12

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

¶13

DR.SAJI BASHEER, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA SMALLA INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SIDCO), HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 875 of 2014 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 28/2/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 5221/2014 C.

¶21

ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT 25/4/2014.

¶22

ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DT 31/7/2014 ON THE SO CALLED HEARING ON 2/5/2014.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JDUGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

========================

¶30

C.O.(C). No. 875 of 2014

¶31

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of November, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging

¶34

contumacious act on the part of the respondent in so far as he was never given an opportunity of hearing as ordered by this Court as per Annexure 1 judgment dated 28.2.2014 in W.P.(C). No. 5221 of 2014. The petitioner has also produced copies of the hearing notice and the relevant proceedings passed by the concerned respondent, as Annexures 2 and 3.

¶35

On receipt of notice issued by this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, paragraph 8 and 9 of which are relevant and are extracted below:

¶36

“8. Para 4 is denied. A personal hearing of petitioner and Sony Joseph was fixed by SIDCO on 25.4.2014 and sent notice dated 11.4.2014 calling upon them for personal hearing. No email communication sent by petitioner seeking to adjourn hearing. The said statement is perse false. Sri. Sony Joseph attended the personal hearing on 25.4.2014 and poduced the documents evidencing the sale of plot to Smt. Julie Sony as early in the year 2009.

¶37

Para 5 is denied. Though the petitioner did

¶38

C.O.C. No. 875 of 2014

¶39

-2-

¶40

not attend the personal hearing on 25.4.2014, it was decided to give one more chance of personal hearing for him on 2.5.2014. The petitioner as well as Sri. Sony Joseph attended the personal hearing before me on 2.5.2014. During the hearing Sri. Sony Joseph again produced certain documents which on perusal by me go to show petitioner had taken conscious steps to transfer the allotted plot and accordingly executed sale agreement with Smt. Julie Sony T.S, wife of Sony Joseph. Sri. Sony Joseph contended that he and his wife were conducting engineering industry in the plot allotted to the petitioner on the strength of power attorney dated 14.9.2009 and sale agreement dated 14.9.2009. they had also indulged in making construction to extend the building to the plot alloted to the petitioner. The allegation that petitioner was not heard is emphatically denied. The petitioner was not willing to settle the issue but adopted a non compromising stand in the hearing. In this circumstance I passed the proceedings to resume the land.”

¶41

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the

¶42

petitioner has already moved this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 15502 of 2014 challenging the proceedings leading to Annexure 3

¶43

and that the said writ petition is pending.

¶44

After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it

¶45

C.O.C. No. 875 of 2014

¶46

-3-

¶47

necessary to proceed with further steps invoking the course and procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act. This contempt matter stands disposed of, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the case forming the subject matter of W.P.(C). No. 15502 of 2014.

¶48

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶49

kp/-

K.K.Jayajith v. Dr.Saji Basheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Jayajith v. Dr.Saji Basheer

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

Sangeetha Vijoy Arora Vs K.Ramachandran

Musafar Ahammed Vs University of Calicut

Ashok A.M. Vs Transport Commissioner

Abdul Azeez Shareerkutty Vs Union of India

Josemel Boy Vs the Chief Manager

Tressamma Raju Vs the State of Kerala