Dismissed

N.R.Chithambaran v. Sri.K.Suresh

Kerala HC21 Jul 2017Con.Case(C)/673/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the petitioner alleged the respondent violated court directions regarding a pending Civil Revision Petition. The court held the authority complied with directions by considering factual circumstances and closed the case while preserving the petitioner's liberty to challenge the impugned order另行.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of court case closed; liberty reserved to pursue action against the impugned order.

N.R.Chithambaran Vs Sri.K.Suresh — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017/30TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 673 of 2017 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34790/2016 DATED 14-02-2017

¶7

------------

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

N.R.CHITHAMBARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE N.R. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SIVADARSAN DEVI COLONY, AMBIKAPURAM P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

¶12

SRI.K.SURESH,

¶13

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C.S.SHEEJA

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 673 of 2017 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2017.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶22

R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 10.4.2017

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.V.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 673 OF 2017

¶28

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 34790/2016 dated 14.02.2017 are not

¶31

complied with by the respondent. Petitioner has produced Annexure 1 order passed by the authority concerned in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. However, it is contended that overlooking the specific direction to consider the application subject to the orders to be passed in the Civil Revision Petition pending before this Court under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was not taken into account and therefore in letter and spirit, the directions issued by this Court is violated. However, on going through Annexure 1 order, it is evident that the statutory authority has passed the order taking into account the ground realities in the factual circumstances, which this Court has permitted the

¶32

Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 673 OF 2017

¶33

¶34

statutory authority to take note of. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that Annexure 1 order is passed in violation of the directions issued by this Court.

¶35

Therefore, I do not find any reason to pursue the contempt of court case any further. However, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue any action against the order impugned, the contempt of court case is closed.

¶36

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶37

DCS

N.R.Chithambaran v. Sri.K.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.R.Chithambaran v. Sri.K.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas John Vs Union Bank of India

Sri.Kuruvilla Mathew Vs the Parathode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Unnikrishnan Vs the Kulikkilliyad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. O.F.591

Mary Joseph Vs Sijamol.C.v.

K.Jyothishkumar Vs U.v.Jose

Fr. Jolly Joseph Vs Sreelekha