Varkey V.A. v. a.Hemachandran, I.P.S.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner filed a contempt case for non-compliance with a judgment dated 07.11.2017 regarding release of retiral benefits. Court, satisfied upon production of a subsequent order dated 30.05.2018 directing release of benefits, closed the contempt case but left open the petitioner's liberty to challenge the substantive order passed. AwlQAw
What did the court decide?
Contempt proceedings are closed finding no need to pursue; liberty to challenge the retiral benefit order is retained.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 682 of 2018 IN WP(C). 35522/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 35522/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-11-2017
PETITIONER/S:
VARKEY V.A., VAZHAYIL HOUSE,AMARAKKUNNI.P.O,PULPALLY, WAYANAD,PIN CODE-673579.
BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 A.HEMACHANDRAN, I.P.S. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSRTC,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PINCODE-695023.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt proceedings should be closed on satisfaction that orders were passed for release of retiral benefits.
Whether to grant liberty to petitioner to challenge the order passed after dismissing the contempt petition.
How to handle a contempt case where there is delay in complying with court directions but some orders have been issued.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
VARKEY V.A.
- respondent
A.HEMACHANDRAN
- respondent
TOMIN J.TACHANKARY
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court