The court noted compliance with prior directions and closed a contempt of court petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge consequential orders separately.
Contempt case closed; petitioner allowed to challenge consequential orders separately.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 168 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).31819/2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31819/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-11-2015
PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER
SHAMSUDHEEN A.K., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KUNHAPPA HAJI, ALAKURUSSITHODY HOUSE GREEN HOUSE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S): FIRST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)
BIJUMON JACOB
(AGED 44 YEARS AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679102
R BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN COC.NO.168 OF 2016
ANNEXURE A A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/11/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO. 31819/2015
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
--------------------Cont. Case (C) No.168 of 2016
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The directions in the judgment have since been complied with. The petitioner is free to challenge the consequential order passed. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed.
Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj/16.02.2016
Shamsudheen A.K.
Bijumon Jacob
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
