Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

C.T.Ignatious vs K.M.Basheer Ma on 2 November, 2011

Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT:

         THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
                                  &
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

          MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2012/3RD MAGHA 1933

           COC.No. 102 of 2012 (S) IN WA/1253/2011
           ----------------------------------------
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.1253/2011 DATED 02.11.2011

PETITIONER(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:
----------------------------

         C.T.IGNATIOUS
         S/O.THOMAS, AGED 75 YEARS, CHUNGATH HOUSE
         12/17, COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTANPET
         PALAKKAD-678001.

         BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN


RESPONDENTS:
------------

        K.M.BASHEER MA, LLM,
        AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
        SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE
        PALAKKAD-678001.

        BY ADV. SRI.C. SURESH MENON

       THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


            MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. &
              P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             Cont. Case No. 102 Of 2012
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Dated, this the 23rd day of January, 2012

                       JUDGMENT

Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality submits that the plan submitted by the petitioner way back in 1995 is missing and therefore, they require a fresh plan to be submitted by the petitioner so as to consider the same for issuance of permission for construction of the building.

2. Accordingly, the contempt matter is closed, directing the respondent to issue permission for construction of the building within two months from the date of receipt of application seeking permission to construct the building along with the fresh plan.

Sd/-

MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge