Allowed

Col. Muhammad Yusuf Stalin v. Dr. Divya Iyer

Kerala HC20 Jan 2021RP/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed a contempt judgment which had been recorded based on a submission that was never made by the petitioner's counsel. Raising the ground that the direction was not complied with, the Court recalled the earlier judgment and allowed the review petition.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed; Contempt judgment dated 24.05.2017 recalled; Contempt case listed for hearing.

Col. Muhammad Yusuf Stalin Vs Dr. Divya Iyer — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.18 OF 2021 IN Con.Case(C). 576/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN COC 576/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

COL. MUHAMMAD YUSUF STALIN AGED 58 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, T.C. 23/1610, BHAGAWATHI NAGAR, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

DR. DIVYA IYER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

SMT. G. RANJITHA GP

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Review Petition No.18 of 2021 in

¶15

¶16

Con. Case (C) No.576 of 2017

¶17

Review Petition No.18 of 2021

¶18

¶19

Con. Case (C) No.576 of 2017

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The contempt case instituted by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this court in W.P.(C) No.24346 of 2016 was closed recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction in the judgment has been complied with. The petitioner seeks review of the said judgment on the ground that his counsel did not make the submission recorded in the judgment. It is asserted by the petitioner that the direction issued by this court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit.

¶22

In so far as it is asserted by the petitioner that the direction issued by this court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, without going into the correctness of the ground that the counsel for the petitioner did not make the submission recorded in the judgment, I deem it appropriate to

¶23

Review Petition No.18 of 2021 in 3 Con. Case (C) No.576 of 2017

¶24

recall the judgment in the contempt case.

¶25

In the result, the review petition is allowed and

¶26

the judgment dated 24.05.2017 in the contempt case is recalled.

¶27

Registry shall list the contempt case for hearing

¶28

next week.

¶29

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶30

ds 20.01.2021

Col. Muhammad Yusuf Stalin v. Dr. Divya Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col. Muhammad Yusuf Stalin v. Dr. Divya Iyer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Don Paul Vs State of Kerala

K.H.Abdul Majeed Vs the Kalamassery Municipality

Eby A.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Joshy E.K. Vs Wadakanchery Municipality

Parambath Kandi Rabiumma Vs Thalassery Municipality

Vitalis Maria Mathew Vs v.M.Tessy