This contempt case was closed on the day it was finally heard because the second respondent produced documents showing the petitioner's agricultural and non-agricultural loans were closed and the balance amount was paid.
The contempt case was closed.
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.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 321 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).5982/2013 ----------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5982/2013
PETITIONER(S):
S. SHAIK MUSTHAFA AGED 57 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ATTAYAMPATHY.P.O, GOVINDAPURAM MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD-658507.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JJ
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
Cont.Case NO:321 OF 2014
Dated this the 21st January, 2016.
JUDGMENT
I.A.145/2015 has been filed by the second respondent in
this case, producing Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) documents. As per the affidavit of the second respondent, the agricultural loan of the petitioner IFL/19 as well as non-agricultural loan NF/422 have been closed after extending to the petitioner, the benefits to which he was entitled. In terms of the settlement, the balance amount due has been paid by the petitioner and the said loan accounts have been closed. The above facts are evident from Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) documents produced. In view of the above this contempt case is closed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj /True copy/
P.S.to Judge
2
3
S. Shaiik Musthafa
Smt. Jayalakshmi
Smt. Girija
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
