Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

John Mathai vs Binu Francis

John Mathai vs Binu Francis

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1644825

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Con.Case(C)/863/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

John Mathai

Respondent

Binu Francis

Excerpt

.....the building constructed is made in violation of the sanctioned plan.2. sri. nandakumara menon, the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the corporation submits that even before the contempt case was filed, the corporation on being informed of some activity going on, had made an inspection, issued a stop memo and ensured that the order is complied with.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner,however, submits that there was a conversion attempt, but, however, now the writ petition itself is posted for hearing and the petitioner would not press the contempt case as of now. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the corporation has specifically directed demolition of the additional construction made, which has not been done.4. there is an impleading petition filed bycertain people who are in the management of the 3rd respondent in w.p.(c)no.36695 of 2016. as there is no contempt alleged against the additional respondents sought to be impleaded in i.a.no.2 of 2021, i do not think that they should be impleaded herein. this court, hence rejects the application for impleadment.5. as far as the contempt case is concerned,the direction was specifically against the corporation and it is not as if the corporation is expected to monitor what is going on inside the building on a day to day basis. when they were informed of some construction going on, they immediately acted upon it and issued a stop memo. i do not think that there is any deliberate contempt on the part of the secretary of the corporation as of now. hence, the contempt case can be closed, however, leaving the remedy of the parties to agitate the cause before the learned single judge. the contempt case is closed. this court makes it clear that the question of construction made in violation of the order can be agitated by the petitioner before the learned single judge having roster for the writ petition. sd/- k. vinod chandran, judge dk appendix of con.case(c) 863/2021 petitioner.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 CON.CASE(C) NO. 863 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 36695/2016 dated 16.11.2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER: JOHN MATHAI AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MATHAIKUTTY, 12B, HEERA TWINS APARTMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004 BY ADVS. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: 1 BINU FRANCIS AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADVS. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) PAUL JACOB (P) SHERU PAUL ADHIL HARIS P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case (Civil)No.863 of 2021 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2021

JUDGMENT

The Contempt Case is filed against the order

at Annexure-I. In Annexure-I, this Court specifically directed the Secretary of the Corporation to ensure that no conversion of the building constructed is made in violation of the sanctioned plan.

2. Sri. Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that even before the Contempt Case was filed, the Corporation on being informed of some activity going on, had made an inspection, issued a stop memo and ensured that the order is complied with.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner,

however, submits that there was a conversion attempt, but, however, now the writ petition itself is posted for hearing and the petitioner would not press the Contempt Case as of now. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation has specifically directed demolition of the additional construction made, which has not been done.

4. There is an impleading petition filed by

certain people who are in the management of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.36695 of 2016. As there is no contempt alleged against the additional respondents sought to be impleaded in I.A.No.2 of 2021, I do not think that they should be impleaded herein. This Court, hence rejects the application for impleadment.

5. As far as the Contempt case is concerned,

the direction was specifically against the Corporation and it is not as if the Corporation is expected to monitor what is going on inside the building on a day to day basis. When they were informed of some construction going on, they immediately acted upon it and issued a stop memo. I do not think that there is any deliberate contempt on the part of the Secretary of the Corporation as of now. Hence, the contempt Case can be closed, however, leaving the remedy of the parties to agitate the cause before the learned Single Judge. The Contempt Case is closed. This Court makes it clear that the question of construction made in violation of the order can be agitated by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge having roster for the writ petition. Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran, Judge DK APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 863/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.36695/2016 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2021 ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2021 RESPONDENT ANNEXURE ANNEXURE R1 (a) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 19.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE R1 (b) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE

NO.E14/32202/21 DATED 21.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties John Mathai vs Binu Francis Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales