Devadasan V.C. v. Ranjay Mooshahary
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt of court case, the petitioner submitted that directions from this Court dated 12.10.2018 have been complied with, and thus no further steps were required.
In a contempt of court case, the petitioner submitted that directions from this Court dated 12.10.2018 have been complied with, and thus no further steps were required.
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.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.491 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 35012/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35012/2016(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12.10.2018
PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.14:
DEVADASAN V.C., AGED 59 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD(KSCARD BANK), REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, EMP.CODE 300, RESIDING ULLATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VIA KURUKKATHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT/SECOND RESPONDENT :
RANJAY MOOSHAHARY AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RANJITH S MOOSHAHARY, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION(EPFO), BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004, RESIDING AT PF QUARTERS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.NITA.N.S., SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.491 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 35012/2016
2
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the direction given by this Court as per Annexure-A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 has been complied with. In the said circumstance, no further steps are called for. Hence, the contempt of court case is closed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE
AMV/16/12/2020
Con.Case(C).No.491 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 35012/2016
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE A1 | CERTIFIED COP 12.10.2018 IN |
Y OF WP(C |
THE JUDGMENT DATED )NO.35012/2016 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | A TRUE COPY 01.04.2019 IN |
OF SLP |
THE ORDER DATED NO.9610/2019 |
| ANNEXURE A3 | A TRUE COPY 04.09.2019 OF |
OF THE |
THE LETTER DATED FIRST RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE A4 | A TRUE COPY O WITH COVERING |
F TH LETT |
E DEMAND DRAFT ALONG ER |
| ANNEXURE A5 | A TRUE COPY 27.12.2019 OF |
OF THE |
THE LETTER DATED FIRST RESPONDENT |
| ANNEXURE A6 | A TRUE COPY 24.01.2020 OF |
OF THE |
THE LETTER DATED SECOND RESPONDENT |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
DEVADASAN V.C.
RANJAY MOOSHAHARY
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
GOPINATH P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court