Joe Antony v. Greater Cochin Development Authority
Case brief
What is this about?
This one-line order considered a writ petition. The court found the petition infructuous based on counsel’s submission and dismissed it without detailed reasoning.
This one-line order considered a writ petition. The court found the petition infructuous based on counsel’s submission and dismissed it without detailed reasoning.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4823 of 2016 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
1. JOE ANTONY, S/O.E.K ANTONY, AGED 51 YEARS, FLAT NO.720, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
2. P.JANARDANAN,S/O.K.P BALAKRISHNA MENON,
3. S.NAGARAJAN, S/O.SUNDARAM, AGED 75 YEARS, FLAT NO 707, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
4. M.VALSAN, G.A 1007, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
5. NIRMALA K, D/O.K.V NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD, FLAT NO 802 A, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
6. MAMTA SISODIA, FLAT NO 1105 E, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
7. MARY STEPHEN, FLAT NO 1405, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
8. SUBHA KOCHERIL, FLAT NO.906, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
9. KOMALAVALLY MANOHARAN, G.D 320, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
10. MINI BABU THALIATH, G.A 213, PURVA GRANDBAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 18.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
--2--
--2--
WP(C).No. 4823 of 2016 (C)
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI, SC BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAAJES H S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SC BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C)No.4823 of 2016
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
writ petition has become infructuous. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
Joe Antony and others
Greater Cochin Development Authority
Corporation of Kochi
Puravankara Projects Limited
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court