Anilkumar. D v. Augustin V.A
Case brief
What is this about?
This contempt case alleged non-compliance of previous court directions. The Court found the Panchayat's fresh order did not address whether a prior restraint memo continued in force. The case was closed after the Panchayat undertook to pass appropriate orders within 7 days.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; liberty to petitioner to seek rehearing if directions not complied within 7 days.
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 MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 612 of 2018 IN WPC. 11935/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11935/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-10-2017
PETITIONER/PETITIONER
ANILKUMAR. D AGED 40 YEARS, S/O DHANAPALAN, MUNDAPLACKAL, KALIYAR P.O., VENMATTAM.
BY ADV.SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S)/3RD AND 5TH RESPONDENTS :
- AUGUSTIN V.A
- AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
whether the Panchayat's Ext.P2 order complying with court directions under the Contempt Case.
whether to keep the Contempt Case pending given the submission to pass appropriate orders within 7 days.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
ANILKUMAR. D AGED 40 YEARS
- respondent
AUGUSTIN V.A
- other
VANNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
- respondent
P.V. BABY
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court