Dismissed

Mathew Philip v. M.P.Jose

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018Con.Case(C)/958/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition challenging non-compliance with directives in a writ petition. The court found that the matter had not reached a stage where serious proceedings were warranted and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner's contentions for the underlying writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed. Liberty to the petitioner to take all contentions in the writ petition.

Mathew Philip Vs M.P.Jose — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940 Con.Case(C).No. 958 of 2018

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.1013/2018 ,DATED 25.01.2018. ---------

¶5

PETITIONER(S)

¶6

MATHEW PHILIP, S/O. LATE P. PHILIP, AGED 65, HOUSE NO.37/1710B, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KUMARAN ASAN NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

M.P.JOSE, AGED AROUND 55, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA B.

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

Con.Case(C).No. 958 of 2018

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES

¶16

ANNEXURE A1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO,1013/2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 25.1.2018.
ANENXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 14.4.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONERS COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 24.4.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONS COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

22.06.2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶23

Cont. Case (C) No. 958 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that directives contained in the judgment dated 25-

¶27

01-2018, is not complied with.

¶28

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Government

¶29

Pleader has produced an order dated 7-02-2018, from whereby I am satisfied that, the District Collector has already taken a decision. In the said order, there is no reference with respect to

¶30

the directives issued in the writ petition. However, on the basis of directives contained in the writ petition, yet another order is

¶31

passed by the District Collector on 26-04-2018, materially on

¶32

the same lines which is under challenge before this court in W.P.

¶33

¶34

Cont. Case (C) No. 958 of 2018 2

¶35

serious issue to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act,

¶36

remaining.

¶37

The Contempt of Court case is therefore closed leaving

¶38

open the liberty of the petitioner to take all contentions in the

¶39

writ petition.

¶40

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

20/06/2018

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mathew Philip v. M.P.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Philip v. M.P.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abu Mathew Vs Ajayakumar

Antony C.C Vs Bhasid Bahulaeyan

The Director of Public Instructions Vs the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Eldhose K.G Vs Sri.Ajithkumar I.as

Saraswathy Amma P Vs Sri Biju Prabhakar,District Collector

Gopalakrishnan Vs the District Supply Officer, Palakkad