Dismissed

S.J.Adersh v. Dr.B.Sreekumar

Kerala HC24 Jan 2018Con.Case(C)/28/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court petition alleging non-compliance with a previous judgment, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the case. The judge held that since the validity of the published compliance orders was pending challenge in a separate writ petition, it was impermissible to find the respondent had not complied.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case was dismissed, recording the submission that the petitioner had filed a fresh writ petition challenging the respondent's compliance order.

S.J.Adersh Vs Dr.B.Sreekumar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 4TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 28 of 2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.23839/2016 DATED 06-04-2017)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶8

S.J.ADERSH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SUDARSANAN, ARUNIMA, KARUMKUTTIKKARA P.O., VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -95 606.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

¶11

DR.B.SREEKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE KERALA FEEDS LIMITED, KALLETTUMKARA POST, THRISSUR, PIN-680 683.

¶12

BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 28 of 2018

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6/4/17 IN WP(C).NO.23839/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PREPARED FOR SELECTING PLANT
	ENGINEER TRAINEES FOR THE KERALA FEEDS LIMITED BASED ON
	THE WRITTEN TEST AND INTERVIEW HELD ON 3/12/11 AND
	21/3/12 RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/2/13 OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER APPOINTING HIM AS PLANT ENGINEER FOR ONE YEAR AT KALLETTUMKARA UNIT ON CONTRANCT BASIS.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/3/16 OF RESPONDENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER RENEWING PETITIONER'S CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM 28/3/16.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF RESPONDENT'S PROCEEDINGS DATED 1/8/17 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BASED ON DIRECTION IN ANNEXURE-AI JUDGMENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

Cont.Case (C)No.28 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.23839 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This case has been filed alleging that the respondent has

¶29

not complied with the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.23839 of 2016 dated 6.4.2017.

¶30

Sri.Benny P.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that as is discernible from the pleadings in this case itself, the respondent has complied with the directions in issuing an order which is now subject to a further litigation, at the hands of the petitioner, in W.P.(C)No.34412 of 2017. The learned counsel thus submits that this contempt of court case is, therefore, not maintainable.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob says that nothing has been suppressed from this Court and he points out that even in the pleadings in this case the factum of him having challenged the order issued by the respondent is stated.

¶32

Cont.Case (C)No.28 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.23839 of 2016

¶33

¶34

I have considered the submissions as above. Even

¶35

though the petitioner says that he is entitled to pursue this contempt of court case, in spite of him having challenged the orders issued by the respondent in a fresh writ petition, I am of the view that it may not be permissible. This is because the validity of the order passed by the respondent, in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment in question, is now pending before this Court and in such circumstances it is obvious that I cannot find the respondent to have not complied with the directions of this Court.

¶36

In such view, I am compelled to dismiss this contempt of court case recording the submission of the learned counsel on either side that the petitioner herein has already approached this Court by filing a fresh writ petition against the orders issued by the respondent in compliance with the judgment involved in this case.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

skj

S.J.Adersh v. Dr.B.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.J.Adersh v. Dr.B.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philomina and Others Vs the District Collector,Thrissur and Ors.

M. Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Vivekanand Venkatram Cona Vs the District Collector

P.A. Basheer Vs Smt. Tinku Biswal

Central Reserve Police Force Pensioners Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala

Bijomon Thomas Vs State of Kerala