Dismissed

Saraswathy B. v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao

Kerala HC8 Feb 2021Con.Case(C)/161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court case filed against respondents in a previous writ petition matter. The court observed that respondents had issued an order, thus dismissing the contempt proceedings. Petitioner was free to challenge the impugned order via appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; petitioner free to challenge the order by appropriate proceedings.

Saraswathy B. Vs S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Con.Case(C).No.161 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

¶7

Con.Case(C).No.161 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 15451/2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15451/2015(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

SARASWATHY B.

AGED 53 YEARS

PART TIME SWEEPER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Q.S. ROAD, CHINNAKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 001

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 S.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶16

FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER , CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶17

2 MR. SURINDER KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONR, THE CIRCLE HEAD, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 001

¶18

3 MR. KRISHNA KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Q.S. ROAD, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 001

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.K.P.SUDHEER,SC

¶21

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Con.Case(C).No.161 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 8^th day of February 2021

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have already issued an order and the petitioner is challenging the same. Therefore the Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶27

Petitioner would be free to challenge the order passed.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

Con.Case(C).No.161 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE I	TRUE COPY OF THE IN W.P.C NO. 154	JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2019 51/2015.
ANNEXURE II	TRUE COPY OF 26.01.2019.	THE REPRESENTATION DATED
ANNEXURE III	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 12.07.2019	ORDER CO/IR/OFFER/SS/2019 .
ANNEXURE IV	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 12.09.2012.
ANNEXURE V	TRUE COPY OF 23.12.2019 SENT	THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.

Saraswathy B. v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathy B. v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao

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

He -Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

He-Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

He-Man Auto Robopark (P) Limited Vs Union of India

Thoppil Infra Associates Vs the State of Kerala

Godvin Fernandaz Vs Union Bank of India

Jini Sebastian, Vs the District Level Authorisation Committee