Dr.T.K. Bridgit v. Dr. S. Leenakumari
Case brief
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:…
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1839 of 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24180/2017 DATED 21/07/2017
PETITIONER/PETITIONER
DR.T.K. BRIDGIT, PROFESSOR & HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, PADANNAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-680656.
BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM., (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2:
1. DR. S. LEENAKUMARI., AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.SRI.GEORGE, CHADAYAMURI, REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN-683003.
2. DR.P.RAJENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SRI.M.PRABHAKARAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN-683003.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC,
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
Con.Case(C).No. 1839 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE.1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2017 IN WPC 24180/17 (V)
ANNEXURE.2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.07.2017 OF THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE 1996 UGC RREGULATION.
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
/TRUE COPY/
sdr/- PA TO JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, J.
Cont.Case (C) No.1839 of 2017
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
Both sides submit that the judgment is complied with.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE
rkc
DR.T.K. BRIDGIT
DR. S. LEENAKUMARI
DR.P.RAJENDRAN
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court