Dismissed

Saleema v. Arun Kumar B.

Kerala HC25 Mar 2022Con.Case(C)/328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala permitted withdrawal filed by petitioners in a contempt proceeding. The court dismissed the contempt case as withdrawn upon petitioners' request not to prosecute the matter during final hearing of the underlying writ petition. No substantive legal principle was expounded.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the contempt case; the contempt proceeding was dismissed as withdrawn.

Saleema Vs Arun Kumar B. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 328 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C)

¶7

5841/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶9

1 SALEEMA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O LATE KOOLATH MUHAMMED, HOUSE OF SAINA, NEAR R K MISSION ASHRAM SCHOOL, KANNANCHERY (P.O.), KALLAYI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 003.

¶10

2 ZAINABI Z.M., AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQUE K, HOUSE OF SAINA, NEAR R K MISSION ASHRAM SCHOOL, KANNANCHERY (P.O.), KALLAYI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 003.

¶11

BY ADV K.DILIP

¶12

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶13

ARUN KUMAR B., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, IOC DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION (P.O.), KOZHIKODE-673 020

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Cont.Case(c)No.328/2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2022

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as this Court is proceeding to hear the matter finally, the petitioners did not want to prosecute the Contempt of Court case and the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the same. Accordingly, granting the permission, the Contempt of Court case is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 328/2022

¶26

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶27

Annexure 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 5841/2016 DATED 31.3.2022

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶29

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 30.08.1985 EXECUTED WITH THE PARTNERSHIP.

¶30

ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXTANT RECONSTITUTION GUIDELINES. ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE SON OF THE LATE KARADAN KUNJHI KHADIYA ON 09.09.2019.

¶31

ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY KRADAN MOHIYADHEEN ON 09.09.2019. ANNEXURE R1(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY SHRI.KARADAN MOHIYADEEN AND THE LEGAL HEIRS OF KOOLATH MOHAMMED, KARADAN KUNHIKADIYA DATED 07.02.2022.

¶32

ANNEXURE R1(f) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.01.2022 ISSUED BY SHRI.KARADAN MOHIYADEEN. ANNEXURE R1(g) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.01.2022 ISSUED BY ZAINABI.

Saleema v. Arun Kumar B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleema v. Arun Kumar B.

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

N.N.Raveendran Vs the Tahsildar

Shareef Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Biju C.M., Vs the Assistant Engineer

Babu M.Mathai Vs Ani.P.N.

Sebastian Thomas Chiramel Vs State Bank of India SBI

Ragsippi v.I., Vs State of Kerala