Disposed

Laila v. P.Vijayan

Kerala HC28 Jul 2015Con.Case(C)/923/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding concerning compliance with a previous order, the High Court accepted the respondent's submission of requiring more time and adjourned the matter, reserving the petitioner's rights to approach the court again if the previous judgment remains unimplemented.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with reservation of petitioner's right to re-approach if prior judgment is not complied with.

Laila Vs P.Vijayan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 923 of 2015 (S)

¶6

-------------------------------------------------(JUDGMENT DATED 07/07/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.7519/2014 )

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶8

LAILA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SURESH BABU, SIJO NIVAS, NETHAJI NAGAR 29, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM, PIN 691030.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP:

¶11

P.VIJAYAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION RESIDING AT NEAR T.M. VARGHEESE LIBRARY, NEAR WEST POLICE STATION, KACHARY PO, KOLLAM PIN 691001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

vmr.

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 923 of 2015 (S)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/07/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶19

ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/05/2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/05/2015.

¶21

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE A - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/06/2015 WP(C) 13403/15.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

vmr.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶27

Cont. Case (C) No. 923 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 7519 of 2014

¶28

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2015

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation would submit that because of the judgment produced along with the counter affidavit as Annexure A, the respondent corporation is not in a position to complete the actions already initiated on the basis of the directions contained in the judgment dated 07.07.2014. As per Annexure A judgment, time was granted to the respondent to consider Ext.P8 in that case after collecting a report from the PWD. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that it would take some more time.

¶31

Recording the said submission, the contempt case is closed reserving the right of the petitioner to approach this Court if the judgment of this Court dated 07.07.2014 in WP(C) No.7519/2014 is not complied with by the respondent corporation.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶34

bka/-

Laila v. P.Vijayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laila v. P.Vijayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu Mamman Vs the Secretary

Auto Riskchaw Thozhilali Union (B.M.S) Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

Jabeena Hamid Yafi Vs Arun Rangan

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer

Mini Jayaram Vs the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayath