Dismissed

V.I. John v. Vishnu Raj

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022Con.Case(C)/1195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the High Court held that the impugned order was a preliminary one under Cr.P.C. Section 133, as the earlier writ judgment did not direct action against the Corporation of Cochin. The court acquitted the petitioner of contempt but granted liberty to challenge the order legally.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to challenge the preliminary order dated 05.11.2022.

V.I. John Vs Vishnu Raj — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 470/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

¶6

V.I. JOHN

¶7

AGED 71 YEARS
VADASSERY HOUSE, DIVISION 18, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
PALLURUTHY, COCHIN, PIN - 682006
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN MANI
JACKSON JOHNY
VARGHESE SABU
SETHULAKSHMI K.K.
DIANA LAURANCE PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENTS/ 3RD AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶9

1 VISHNU RAJ

¶10

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682001

¶11

2C. PREMAKUMARI
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WELLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN,
PIN – 682009

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
V.ABRAHAM MARKOS(K/354/1975)
ISAAC THOMAS(K/571/2014)
P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM(MAH/002141/2016)
ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS(K/001270/2018)
SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA(K/001677/2018)
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE -GP

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CON.CASE(C) NO.1195 OF 2022

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2022

¶18

Government Pleader submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed a preliminary order under Section 133 Cr.P.C on 05.11.2022.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed on 05.11.2022 is only a preliminary order and the respondents have not taken action against the Corporation of Cochin.

¶20

Going through the judgment dated 22.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.470 of 2022, I find that the only direction given in the judgment was to consider Exts.P6 and P7 representations submitted by the petitioner. This Court has not given any direction in the judgment to proceed against the Corporation of Cochin.

¶21

In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the present preliminary order passed, the

¶22

CON.CASE(C) NO.1195 OF 2022

¶23

petitioner may have to take recourse to such proceedings in accordance with law.

¶24

I find that, prima facie, the direction contained in the judgment in the writ petition, is complied with. The Contempt of Court Case is therefore closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the preliminary order dated 05.11.2022 or to take such other legal steps, if the petitioner is so advised.

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

CON.CASE(C) NO.1195 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1195/2022

¶31

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶32

Annexure1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C) NO.470 OF 2022 DATED 22/03/2022
Annexure2TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
16/04/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH ANNEX.A.1 JUDGMENT TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure3TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
16/04/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH ANNEX.A.1 JUDGMENT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
26/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure5MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES AGAINST THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN W.P(C) NO. 470 OF 2022
Annexure6MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES AGAINST THE 6TH
RESPONDENT IN W.P(C) NO. 470 OF 2022

¶33

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶34

Annexure R2(a)True copy of the order dated 20.07.2022
passed by the 2nd respondent

V.I. John v. Vishnu Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I. John v. Vishnu Raj

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

Shaji N.R Vs Sri. A.M. Naisam

M/S. C.I. Constructions Vs Ajit Kumar IAS

Jayalakshmi.K., Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Crushers LLP Vs the Tahsildar

Alex v Luke, Vs District Collector

Delphi Cherian Vs the Geologist