James v. Muraleedharan
Case brief
What is this about?
Contempt proceedings wherein the Court closed the case after the Government Pleader submitted that the time granted for compliance was extended, though the remedy was left open.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed due to extension of time for compliance.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 24 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).23518/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23518/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11.08.2015
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:
JAMES AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LONAPPAN, PAZHAYIDATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.C.VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KUNJANDI, MARIYATHODI HOUSE PARITHIPRA, SHORNUR P.O., PALAKKAD PIN-679121.
BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN THE WPC :
MURALEEDHARAN CONVENER, THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PORATHISSERY P.O.KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680711.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
JAMES
- respondent
MURALEEDHARAN
Coram
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court