Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.VIJAYANANTHAKURUP, THOTTATHIL VEEDU versus OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.VIJAYANANTHAKURUP, THOTTATHIL VEEDU v. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE - WP(C) No. 2049 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 1406 (18 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2049 of 2007(R)

1. G.VIJAYANANTHAKURUP, THOTTATHIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner

2. DAMODHARAN UNNITHAN, MALAYIN KANDATHINAL

Vs

1. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE,
... Respondent

2. K.BARGHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,

3. ARAMBIL SUKUMARAN UNNITHAN, AGED 65,

4. O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 60,

5. V.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 51,

6. R.BHASKARA KURUP, AGED 76,

7. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS,

8. V.SADASIVAN, AGED 57,

9. S.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 72,

10. DR.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN PILLAI,

11. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA SPECIALILTY HOSPITAL,

12. M.R.RAJENDRAN, NADASSERIL HOUSE,

13. S.JAYAPRAKASH, KALARIKKAL,

14. C.HARISANKAR, PADANILATHU,

15. PUSHPADASAN, CHAITHANYA,

16. SHOK KUMAR, CHATHAYAM,

17. BIMAL DANI, MALAKKADATHU HOUSE,

18. S.SASIDHARAN PILLAI,

19. V.VIJAYANPILLAI, KANICHERIL HOUSE,

20. M.C.SURESH, LEKSHMI, THOPPIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :18/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.2049 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners are defendants 12 and 13 in O.S.1/06 on the file of first Additional District Court, Kollam. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order. According to petitioners, though Ext.P3 application was filed to remove second defendant/second respondent and other office bearers from their posts and to make an interim arrangement for administration and taking income of the temple, learned Additional District Judge did not dispose the application and instead passed Ext.P6 order.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that learned District Judge may be directed to pass orders in Ext.P3 application, considering the contentions raised by petitioners. On hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and perusing Ext.P6 order it is clear that learned District Judge did not pass any order in Ext.P3 application after considering the merit of the contentions raised by petitioners . Learned District Judge is therefore directed to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 application as W.P.(c)2049/07 2 expeditiously as possible and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd


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.