G.Balakrishnan Nair v. v.J.Kurian
Case brief
What is this about?
A contempt petition alleging disobedience of directions to pay admitted contract amounts was closed. The court noted the disputed deduction was later released, and quantification disputes must be raised in a proper forum.
What did the court decide?
closed the contempt petition.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1886 of 2016 IN WPC. 16740/2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16740/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-08-2016
PETITIONER:
G.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, "GOKULAM", 32/2255 A, NEW KALAVATH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.M.FAISAL SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA
RESPONDENTS:
- V.J.KURIAN AGED 57 YEARS, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.K.RADHAMANI AGED 54 YEARS, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, 'KUTTANAD PACKAGE', THIRUVAMBADI, ALAPPUZHA-688 009. 3. GEETHA P.R. AGED 53 YEARS, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KUTTANADU DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE, CHENGANNUR-689 121. 4. A.HAFSA BEEVI AGED 53 YEARS, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUTTANADU DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, MANKOMBU, VEZHAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 600.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
G.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
- respondent
V.J.KURIAN
- respondent
C.K.RADHAMANI
- respondent
GEETHA P.R.
- respondent
A.HAFSA BEEVI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court