Shameer M.K. v. Suresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 406 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).621/2015 --------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 621/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-01-2015 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------------------ SHAMEER M.K., AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MANAKKATTU HOUSE, MUVALOOR VILLAGE PEZHAKKAPPILLY KAA, PEZHAKKAPPILLY.P.O MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, (PROPRIETOR, P.V.M.PLYWOODS KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA).

BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------------------------------- SURESH,, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, CHALIL HOUSE, VENGALLORE.P.O KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK (COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT-685051).

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SUDHEESH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

das

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

=========================================== Cont. Case (C). No. 406 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

It is brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, a fresh order was passed, fixing the reduced amount, for which the petitioner was to execute the bond. The order passed by the respondent also contained certain conditions that had to be complied with by the petitioner as a condition for grant of registration. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on receipt of the said order from the respondent, he has impugned the said order in separate proceedings before this Court. I take note of the fact however, that pursuant to the directions in judgment dated 15.01.2015, an order was passed by the respondent and inasmuch as the directions in the judgment was only to pass an order, there is no case of Contempt of Court made out. Resultantly, the Contempt of Court case is closed, by recording the fact that the respondent has passed an order in compliance with the judgment dated 15.01.2015, of this Court.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das