Disposed

V N Gopalakrishnan Nair v. M K Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC25 Jul 2018Con.Case(C)/1309/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case addressed an allegation that the first respondent assumed charge as President of the Fine Arts Society in defiance of a court order. The court found insufficient evidence to show the respondent knowingly violated the order, distinguishing the case based on lack of communication of the order to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

No contempt action initiated against the first respondent; the matter is disposed of accordingly.

V N Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs M K Radhakrishnan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1309 of 2017 IN OPC. 2067/2017

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

V.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶9

AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VARIKKAT HOUSE, KARATTUPALLIKKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN

¶13

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIL PUTHENVEEDU, PATTALA, IRINGOLE.P.O, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE,

¶14

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶15

2. G.VIKRAMAN NAIR

¶16

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.GOPALAN NAIR, SOWPARNIKA,

¶17

NRITHANJALI, KADUVAL, PERUMBAVOOR, SECRETARY,

¶18

THE FINE ARTS SOCIETY (REGD.), PERUMBAVOOR,

¶19

PERUMBAVOOR P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,

¶20

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶23

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Con.Case(C).No. 1309 of 2017 IN OPC. 2067/2017

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶27

¶28

ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 6.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE SHO PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION

¶29

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: N I L

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

PA TO JUDGE

¶32

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶33

Cont. Case (C) No.1309 of 2017

¶34

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2018

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶37

Allegation of the petitioner is that in defiance of the order passed by this Court in O.P.(C).No.2067 of 2017 dated 6.7.2017, the 1^st respondent contumaciously assumed charge as President of the Fine Arts Society, Perumbavoor. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent, in utter disregard and in violation of the order passed by this Court and with full knowledge of the scope of the order, assumed the Office. The order was intimated to him at 6.45 pm on 6.7.2017. Thereafter he assumed the charge, is the allegation.

¶38

Per contra, the affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent would show that at 6 pm, the assumption of charge had taken place. To substantiate this contention, a minutes book signed by the members of the Society has been produced.

¶39

Counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, the

¶40

¶41

Cont.Case (C) No.1309/2017

¶42

former Secretary of the Society, would show that the 1^st respondent assumed the Office in violation of the order passed. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the 2^nd respondent is a person owing allegiance to the petitioner and he has been made a respondent herein only to support the contentions of the petitioner.

¶43

Apart from the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that a notice was served on the 1^st respondent at 6.45 pm on the date of passing the order, there is no reliable material to find that the 1^st respondent knowingly violated the order of this Court. Relying on Suresh v. Imran Khan [1995 Supp (3) SCC 306] , learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that unless there is material evidence to show that the 1^st respondent had violated the orders even after becoming aware of the orders passed by this Court, he cannot be held liable for contempt of Court. Paragraph 2 is relied on for canvassing this proposition:

¶44

The proceedings in contempt are in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings and it must be shown that the litigant in defiance or disobedience of the court's order proceeded to do any act which was in violation thereof. Unless the litigant is aware of a

¶45

¶46

Cont.Case (C) No.1309/2017

¶47

prohibitory order made against him by the court there can be no desire or intention on his part to flout the court's order. Therefore, unless it is shown that the litigant was made aware of the order served on his lawyer it may not be possible to hold that despite the knowledge of the order he willfully decided to commit a breach of the order by acting contrary thereto. Proceedings in the nature of contempt being quasi-criminal it must be shown that the litigant was aware of the prohibitory order issued by the court and notwithstanding the same in breach thereof or in total disregard thereof he proceeded to continue with the construction. It being not disputed that there was no evidence to show that the lawyer to whom the prohibitory order was given had communicated that order in any manner whatsoever to the litigant, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that by continuing with the construction the litigant intended to commit a breach of the order or showed disrespect for the order. In that view of the matter if the High Court was disinclined to punish the litigant for contempt, be that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, we see no reason why we should interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition

¶48

¶49

Cont.Case (C) No.1309/2017

¶50

is, therefore, dismissed. No order on the application for impleadment.

¶51

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to initiate a contempt action against the 1^st respondent in the light of the facts established in this case. Hence, the matter is disposed accordingly.

¶52

Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶53

V N Gopalakrishnan Nair v. M K Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V N Gopalakrishnan Nair v. M K Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.T.Mary Vs Vayalali Pavithran

Janaki Menon Vs Dineshkumar

Puthen Peedikakkal Rabia Umma Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

K.J.Cherry Babu Vs S.Shahjahan

Rajapalayam Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Augustin Joseph

Paulose Vs Roy Abraham