Radhakrishnan v. Anila Prakash
Case brief
What is this about?
A contempt case filed alleging violation of an interim order directing a unit to function only between 6.00 a.m and 6.00 p.m. The court found no violation after the State Pollution Control Board reported results of five inspections.
What did the court decide?
The contempt case was closed as no violation was noticed in the inspections conducted.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2023 IN WP(C) 25981/2021 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN,
RADHA MANDIRAM, KODUMON MURI,
KODUMON VILLAGE, KODUMON PO,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691555
BY ADVS.
NEENU PAVITHRAN
ANJANA P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P.(C):
1ANILA PRAKASH
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH,
PRAKASH MANDIRAM, KODUMON VILLAGE,
KODUMON PO,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691555
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the complaint of operation beyond prescribed hours was substantiated by verified inspection reports.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RADHAKRISHNAN
- respondent
ANILA PRAKASH
- respondent
PRASANTH PRAKASHAN
- respondent
PRASOBH PRAKASHAN
- respondent
PRAVITHAMOL
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court