Sunil Thomas v. Padmanabhan
Case brief
What is this about?
The court granted the respondents one month to comply with directives in the writ petition. Consequently, the pending contempt of court petition was closed as inconsequential.
What did the court decide?
Extension of one month granted; contempt of court case closed as inconsequential.
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 2248 of 2016 (S) ------------------------------WP(C) 10503/2016 of THIS HON'BLE COURT --------
PETITIONER(S):
SUNIL THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHEMPAKAMATTAM, KADATHURUTHY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN:686604 (ASSISTANT MANAGER-UNDER SUSPENSION), KADATHURUTHY CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., KANDATHURUTHY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW VALSALAN
RESPONDENT(S):
PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN:686604.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.R.DEEPA
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves a one-month extension to comply with directives, and if the extension would render the contempt case inconsequential.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sunil Thomas
- respondent
Padmanabhan
Coram
Shaji P. Chaly
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court