Dismissed

A.K. Velayudhan v. Antony Chacko

Kerala HC7 Sept 2016Con.Case(C)/1262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was closed as the petitioner's grievance regarding the merits of the respondent's order did not fall within the scope of contempt proceedings. The petitioner was directed to challenge the substantive order separately.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case stands closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order dated 8.3.2016.

A.K. Velayudhan Vs Antony Chacko — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1262 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).35242/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35242/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-11-2015

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶8

A.K. VELAYUDHAN AGED:44 YEARS, S/O KUTTIRAMAN, AKKAMVAYAL HOUSE, THAZHATHOOR PO-673595 (DRIVER, KSRTC, SULTHAN BATHERY DEPOT, WAYANAD DISTRICT)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC :

¶11

ANTONY CHACKO (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023

¶12

R BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 1262 of 2016 (S)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE 1-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN IN WP(C) 35242/2015 DATED 2411-2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶18

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

K.HARILAL, J.

....................................................

¶23

Cont.Case (C)No.1262 of 2016

¶24

..................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance with the direction in the order dated 24.11.2015, the first respondent has passed orders on 8.3.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that the first respondent had passed orders, but his grievance is that the order was not passed on merits. The grievance projected by the petitioner will not come within the scope of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act. Hence this contempt of court case will stand closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 8.3.2016.

¶27

K.HARILAL, JUDGE

¶28

sks/8/9/2016

A.K. Velayudhan v. Antony Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K. Velayudhan v. Antony Chacko

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

Sheeba Sebastian Vs Bruslin

Mallika Gopalan Vs Rishi Raj Singh

State Vs Elanchery Cheriya Pennu

Samson Vs v. Ratheesan

Santhi Vijayakumar Vs Dr.D.C. Joshi

Benny Jacob Vs K.K.Purushothaman