Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J
John Victor – Appellant
Versus
Chelساسin.V – Respondent
CON.CASE(C) NO. 677 OF 2024|WP(C) NO.19042 OF 2015
Important Points
Contempt closed upon claimed compliance, liberty given to challenge order's adequacy.
Subject
Civil - Contempt
Headnote
The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the High Court's judgment dated 25.09.2023 in W.P.
(C) No.19042/2015. The respondent claimed issuance of an order in compliance. The court noted the petitioner's submission that the order was not in full compliance but permitted challenge thereto. The contempt case was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the compliance order separately. Issues framed involved adequacy of compliance with the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that partial compliance warrants closure of contempt with liberty to pursue further remedies. Contempt case closed.
(C) No.19042/2015. The respondent claimed issuance of an order in compliance. The court noted the petitioner's submission that the order was not in full compliance but permitted challenge thereto. The contempt case was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the compliance order separately. Issues framed involved adequacy of compliance with the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that partial compliance warrants closure of contempt with liberty to pursue further remedies. Contempt case closed.
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent claims compliance; petitioner disputes fullness. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. case closed with liberty to challenge. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
1. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an Order is issued in compliance with the judgment dated 25.09.2023 in W.P.(C) No.19042/2015.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said Order is not in full compliance with the aforesaid judgment and the Contempt Case can be closed, giving liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the same.
3. Giving such liberty, the Contempt Case is closed.
