Partly allowed

Smt. v.Rajalakshmi v. Sunil Kumar P.

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016Con.APP(C)/5/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Contempt Appeal (C), the High Court at Ernakulam dismissed the appeal against an interim order directing the respondent to appear in person. The bench held that such a direction was uncalled for and deleted the specific language, partly allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Deleted the direction requiring the respondent to appear in person; left parties to appear and take permissible pleas.

Smt. v.Rajalakshmi Vs Sunil Kumar P. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Con.APP(C).No. 5 of 2015 () IN Con.Case(C).1044/2015

¶6

-----------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN Con.Case(C) 1044/2015 DATED 13.11.2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.7608/2015 IN WP(C) 15588/2015 DATED 2.7.2015

¶7

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

¶8

APPELLANT(S) :-

¶9

SMT. V.RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 54, W/O. GOVINDANKUTTY, SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR-688 001

¶10

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶12

SUNIL KUMAR P., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O P. PADMAJAN, RESIDING AT ARACKAL PARAMBIL EDAVETTY P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 585.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT APPEALS (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

jvt

¶16

CONT.APPEAL (C) NO.5 OF 2015

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS :-

¶19

ANNEXURE-A :- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CONT. COURT CASE (C) No.1044/2015. ANNEXURE-B :- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-C :- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN CONT.CASE (C) No.1044/15 DATED 13.11.2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL.

¶21

//TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶23

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶24

Cont. Appeal (C) No.5 of 2015 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of January 2016

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Ashok Bhushan, CJ.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

This contempt appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 13.11.2015, by which, the learned Single Judge while posting the matter on 17.11.2015 for reporting compliance, directed that if order is not complied, the respondent has to appear in person before the Court. The respondent has come up in appeal against the said order.

¶29

The case of the appellant is that though an opportunity has been given by the Supreme Court to file a review petition before the Division Bench of this Court and a review petition was filed and the Division Bench had permitted the appellant to seek modification of the interim order dated 2.7.2015, the prayer of the appellant to modify the interim order is yet to be considered.

¶30

We are of the view that the direction of the learned Single Judge calling upon the respondent to appear in person is uncalled for. We, thus, delete the last sentence of the order, that

¶31

Cont. Appeal (C) No.5 of 2015

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

is; “if order is not complied, the respondent shall appear personally before this Court” .

¶34

Leaving the parties to appear in the contempt case and take such pleas as permissible under law, this contempt appeal is partly allowed.

¶35

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶37

J UDGE

¶38

Jvt/12.1.2016.

Smt. v.Rajalakshmi v. Sunil Kumar P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.Rajalakshmi v. Sunil Kumar P.

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

The Travancore Cochin Council of Modern Medicine Vs Dr.Shifa Naser

Authorised Officer Vs Vetukallupurath Preetha

M/S.Pgs Hospitality Vs the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer

Sajeena Anwar Vs Santhosh Mohanan

Sheeba T.N. Vs P.G.Subadravally

John Thomas Vs the Secretary