David @ David v. Manikantan
Case brief
What is this about?
Court observed that the contempt case is closed as the respondent-Tahsildar filed an order recording compliance, based on submissions to the court.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1303 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16155/2019
ARISING THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2019 IN WP(C) 16155/2019(T) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DAVID @ DAVID, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE AROGYASWAMI, PAPAM PALLIYAR HOUSE, PAMBUPARA, CHANDRAPURAM P.O., WALAYAR, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
SRI.MANIKANTAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, (LR), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
DAVID @ DAVID
- respondent
SRI.MANIKANTAN
Coram
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court