Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.R.CICILY MATHEW, AGED 70 versus MINI ANTONY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.R.CICILY MATHEW, AGED 70 v. MINI ANTONY - Con Case(C) No. 705 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 9641 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 705 of 2007(S)

1. R.R.CICILY MATHEW, AGED 70,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MINI ANTONY,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.R.R.CICILY MATHEW(PARTY IN PERSON)

For Respondent :SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU (SC, KOCHI CORPORATI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

C.O.C. NO.705 OF 2007

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The Secretary of the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit wherein she has clearly averred that at the time when the building in question was taken over by the Corporation there were no movables or household articles in the building. Annexure-R1(c) Mahazar prepared by the Health Inspector, who took possession of the building from the petitioner, is relied on. By way of order dated 29.5.2007, I had directed the Corporation to produce the receipt which was issued by the petitioner at the time when the building in question was delivered back to her in pursuance to my order dated 19.3.2007. Annexure.R1(a) order authorizing one Sri.Dilip Kumar Health Inspector who return the building to the petitioner as well as Annexure R1(b) receipt issued by the petitioner against receipt of the building are relied on in this counter affidavit. Ext.R1 (b) is issued under the handwriting and signature of the petitioner. In Anenxure R1(b) COC No. 705/2007 2 the petitioner does maintain her stand that no household articles have been returned to her.

2. The issue whether there were household articles in the building at the time when the building was taken over from the petitioner has thus become contentious. Having regard to Annexure R1(c) and the averments in the affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the Corporation which are fairly convincing, I do not think that this court will be justified in initiating action against the respondent for contempt. However, this court is not finally deciding on the issue whether there were household articles in the building belonging to the petitioner when the Corporation took it over. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies from a Competent Civil Court in that context. The initiation of contempt will not be justified. The Contempt of Court Case will stand closed accordingly accepting the counter affidavit submitted by the Secretary of the Corporation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

dpk COC No. 705/2007 3


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.