Mohanan Pillai vs Jayan

Mohanan Pillai vs JAYAN

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1865934

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1865934
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh
Decided On: Oct 30, 2019
Case Number: Con.Case(C)/1552/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohanan Pillai

Respondent

JAYAN

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice v.chitambaresh wednesday, the 30th day of october 2019 / 8th karthika, 1941 con.case(c).no.1552 of 2015(s) in wp(c). 28717/2014 against the judgment dated 15-01-2015 in wpc 28717/2014 of high court of kerala petitioner/4th respondent in the writ petition: mohanan pillai,aged 66, s/o.raman pillai,aiswarya, kulasekharamangalam p.o., vaikkom taluk,kottayam district 686 608. by adv. sri.g.sreekumar (chelur) respondent/third respondent in the writ petition:1 jayan k.,age and father's name and other details not known to the petitioner, assistant executive engineer, kerala state electricity board, electrical sub division,vaikkom p.o., vaikom 686 141, kottayam district. addl.2 leela v.k,w/o sasidharan pillai, addl.3 silas,d/o.sasidharan pillai, additional r2 and r3 are impleaded as per order dated 30.10.2019 in i.a.no.475/2015. r2-3 by adv. sri.p.n.anoop r2-3 by adv. sri.p.s.nandanan r2-3 by adv. sri.santhosh peter (mamalayil) sri. sudheer ganesh kumar.r-sc, kseb this contempt of court case (civil) having come up foradmission on 30.10.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentannexure i judgment inter alia states that the expenses for issuing the electricity line and erecting the post shall be borne by the petitioner and the fourth respondent in the writ petition in equal shares. but it transpires that only the fourth respondent has paid his share and the writ petitioner (since deceased) has not deposited his share of the expenses.2. the respondent in the contempt case cannot therefore be faulted with for not shifting the electricity supply line in terms of the directions contained in thejudgment dated 15.01.2015.the contempt case is dismissed. v. chitambaresh judge ncd appendix annexure i a certified copy of the final judgment in wp(c)no.28717 of 2014 dated 15.01.2015 of this honourable court.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.1552 OF 2015(S) IN WP(C). 28717/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-01-2015 IN WPC 28717/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: MOHANAN PILLAI,AGED 66, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,AISWARYA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., VAIKKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 608. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT/THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 JAYAN K.,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME AND OTHER DETAILS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,VAIKKOM P.O., VAIKOM 686 141, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL.2 LEELA V.K,W/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI, ADDL.3 SILAS,D/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, ADDITIONAL R2 AND R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 IN I.A.NO.475/2015. R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.ANOOP R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.NANDANAN R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) SRI. SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR.R-SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Annexure I judgment inter alia states that the expenses for issuing the electricity line and erecting the post shall be borne by the petitioner and the fourth respondent in the writ petition in equal shares. But it transpires that only the fourth respondent has paid his share and the writ petitioner (since deceased) has not deposited his share of the expenses.

2. The respondent in the contempt case cannot therefore be faulted with for not shifting the electricity supply line in terms of the directions contained in the

judgment dated 15.01.2015.

The contempt case is dismissed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd APPENDIX ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.28717 OF 2014 DATED 15.01.2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties Mohanan Pillai vs JAYAN Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh