Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 61 YEARS versus SRI.P.P.SIVARAMAN, (AGE AND FATHERS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 61 YEARS v. SRI.P.P.SIVARAMAN, (AGE AND FATHERS - Con Case(C) No. 1222 of 2006(S) [2007] RD-KL 11406 (27 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 1222 of 2006(S)

1. SARAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 61 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SRI.P.P.SIVARAMAN, (AGE AND FATHERS
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :27/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 1222 OF 2006 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 27th June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: Alleging that the respondent herein has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in Original Petition No. 14651 of 1999 dated 16th December, 2005, the complainant is before us in this Contempt Case.

2. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the Original Petition had observed as under:

"The issue raised in this Writ Petition regarding the entitlement of the benefits under Rule 60 of Part III KSR is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Neelakandan Nair (2005(3)KLT 717). There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to settle the benefits due to the petitioner in the light of the said judgment, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment referred to above. "

3. The petitioner, being of the opinion that in spite of long lapse of time, the respondent has not complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court, has filed this Contempt Case.

4. During the pendency of this Contempt Case, the respondent has passed an order dated 12.06.2007 and in that has stated that the complainant would be entitled only to certain reliefs. CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 1222 OF 2006 2

5. This Court, while disposing of the Original Petition, had directed the 4th respondent to settle the benefits due to the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs. Neelakandan Nair (2005 (3) KLT 717). Now that the respondent has passed a detailed order dated 12.6.2007, in our view, there is substantial compliance with the order passed by this court. In that view of the matter we do not intend to take cognizance of this Contempt Case filed by the petitioner. Therefore, further proceedings in this Contempt case require to be dropped and accordingly, they are dropped.

6. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if he desires so, to question the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 12.06.2007, passed by the 4th respondent in appropriate proceedings.

7. I.A.No. 3634 of 2006 is also disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk/DK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.