Joe Paul v. Ummer
Case brief
What is this about?
This contempt case was closed after the respondent issued an order complying with the court's previous directions, albeit belatedly, despite the petitioner's concession of compliance.
What did the court decide?
The contempt case was closed upon recording that the substantive directions had been complied with by an impugned order.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 1342 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 16468/2017, DATED 19-05-2017
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
JOE PAUL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.PAUL, KUDIYIRIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.I.DINESH MENON
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. UMMER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 003, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER).
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Joe Paul
- respondent
Ummar
- respondent
Anandakrishnan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court