Disposed

Fort-in Ifra Developers Private Limited v. Mr.Harikumar

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020Con.Case(C)/1173/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court had a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with prior directions. The respondent granted undertaking to comply within four weeks. The Court accepted the undertaking, recorded it, and disposed of the contempt proceedings with liberty to reopen if directions are not complied with. Quality ok

What did the court decide?

Proceedings disposed based on undertaking to comply within four weeks; liberty given to reopen on breach.

Fort-in Ifra Developers Private Limited Vs Mr.Harikumar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942 Con.Case(C).No.1173 OF 2020 IN WP(C)No.7178/2020

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C)No.7178/2020(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. FORT-IN IFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAVIS ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691013, HAVING REGISTRATION NO. CIN:U45202KL2007PTCO20967 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY S. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.R. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶10

MR.HARIKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM CORPORATION OFFICE, NEAR KOLLAM RAILWAY STATION, KARBALA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.

¶11

SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, STANDING COUNSEL

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Cont.Case (C) No.1173 /2020 in W.P.(C) No. 7178 /2020

¶14

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

================================= Cont.Case (C) No.1173 of 2020 in

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 7178 of 2020

¶18

================================= Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2020

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The abovesaid Cont.case(c) has been filed alleging noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment dated 10.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.7178/2020, filed by the petitioner herein. When this case came up for consideration on 25.08.2020, this Court has passed an order on the same day recording the submissions of the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, which reads as follows:

¶21

“Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, learned Standing Counsel for the Kollam Municipal Corporation submits on the basis of instructions that the respondent Kollam Municipal Corporation had filed Writ Appeal to impugn Anx.A1 judgment in W.P(C) No.7178/2020 and that the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the said Writ Appeal and that the respondent officer would immediately take steps to ensure compliance of the directions in Anx.A1 judgment and some time may be granted in that regard, and also seeks two weeks time to file affidavit in the matter.

¶22

2. Time granted.

¶23

3. The Registry will place on record a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal arising out

¶24

Cont.Case (C) No.1173 /2020 in W.P.(C) No. 7178 /2020

¶25

¶26

of Anx.A1 judgment dated 10-03-2020 in W.P(C) No.7178/2020, for the perusal of this Court.”

¶27

Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri.M.K. Chandra Mohandas, the learned Standing counsel for the Kollam Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondent officer submits on the basis of the instructions that, in view of the dismissal of the Writ appeal, W.A.No.1048/2020 on 21.08.2020 by the Division Bench of this Court, confirming Annexure A1 judgment of this Court, steps have been urgently taken by the respondent officer to immediately comply with the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment and that necessary decision in the matter, as directed in Annexure A1 judgment will be rendered by the respondent officer within four weeks. The abovesaid submissions and undertakings made by the respondent officer are recorded.

¶28

In view of the abovesaid submissions, the Cont.Case

¶29

need not be kept pending any longer, as there is no reasons for this Court to disbelieve the abovesaid submissions and undertakings made on behalf of the respondent officer through their learned standing counsel. However, if the directions in Annexure A1 judgment are not complied with within the said time limit, then the petitioner herein will be at liberty to file appropriate application, so as to reopen the above

¶30

Cont.Case (C) No.1173 /2020 in W.P.(C) No. 7178 /2020

¶31

¶32

said contempt proceedings in which case, this Court will have to take a very serious view of the matter.

¶33

Recording the above said submissions of the respondent and with the said liberty to the petitioner, the above Cont.Case(C) will stand disposed of.

¶34

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶35

¶36

Cont.Case (C) No.1173 /2020 in W.P.(C) No. 7178 /2020

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.7178/2020

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Fort-in Ifra Developers Private Limited v. Mr.Harikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fort-in Ifra Developers Private Limited v. Mr.Harikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Soumya N. Vs District Police Chief

Hemalatha Vs State of Kerala

Kamarudheen P. Vs the State of Kerala

P.P.Tony Vs Bindhu

Shajahan Y. Vs Salil Evugin