The High Court of Kerala, duly noting the pendency of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, found no ground for further civil contempt action against the respondents. The Court dismissed the applications without prejudice to future rights.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937
Con.Case(C).No. 542 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).20418/2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20418/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-01-2015
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS 2 TO 6:
1. PADMAJA B, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.BHASKARAN N, THANDASSERIL THEKKATHIL, VARAVILA P O, VARAVILA KOLLAM DIST., PIN-690 528.
2. ABHILASH P, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.U PADMOLBHAVAN, USHUS, SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA P O, KOLLAM.
3. JAFARKHAN A, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABHULSALAM M, JAFAR MANZIL, KARIKODE, TKMC P O, KOLLAM-5.
4. PRINCE P KRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.PAVITHRAN K, MADATHIL VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM P O
5. VIPINRAJ N, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.NADARAJAN N, VIPIN NIVAS, KALLUMTHAZHAM P O, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 004.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)
RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT:
ANTONY CHACKO, AGE AND FATHER'S
NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2016, ALONG WITH COC 557 OF 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COC 542/15
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.01.2015 IN WP (C) 20418/2014.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg-8/1
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
.................................................................... Cont. Case (C) Nos.542 and 557 of 2015 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of January, 2016.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
In view of the pendency of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.28056 of 2015 and the interlocutory order granted therein by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, we do not find any ground to hold that there is any conduct which could fall for further action for civil contempt in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, therefore, dismiss these applications without prejudice.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
jg-7/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to proceed with contempt proceedings given the pendency of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court
Whether an interlocutory order from the Supreme Court negates grounds for civil contempt
Padmaja B & others
Antony Chacko
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
