Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
NAVNEETH KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
RACHNA SHAH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claims regarding disability posts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definition of civil contempt and its requirements. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. opposition's arguments against contempt charges. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's emphasis on intent for contempt. (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion regarding lack of contempt. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J
The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance with the judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in O.P.(CAT) No. 14 of 2024, arising out of O.A. No. 325/2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Direct the 2nd respondent to recommend candidates from the selection done for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD- Others.
(ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to make necessary modifications in Annexure A8 final selection list recommending candidates for all the available 45 posts under the c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
