Laveena Majeed.T.P. vs Sachin Takur
2021 Latest Caselaw 8237 Ker

Con.Case(C) 2007/2020                      1/2



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        Present:

                        THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

              Wednesday,the 10th day of March 2021/19th Phalguna, 1942

            Contempt Case(Civil) No.2007/2020(S) in WP(C) No.843/2020


    For information purpose only
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(CIVIL) NO 843/2020:
      LAVEENA MAJEED.T.P., AGED 18 YEARS,
      D/O.ABDUL MAJEED T.P AND SAREENA K.U.,
      THORAKKATTIL PAZHAMTHOTTINGAL HOUSE, VETTATHUR P.O.,
      MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 326.

       BY ADVOCATES       M/S SUSANTH SHAJI,
                          VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE.
RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.843/2020:
      SACHIN TAKUR, AGED 44 YEARS,
      S/O.M.S.THAKUR, RESIDING AT 61, MAHESWARI APARTMENTS, SECTOR 14,
      ROHINI, DELHI-110085,REGIONAL OFFICER,
      CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,BLOCK B,2ND FLOOR,
      LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM,
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA STATE.

       SRI.NIRMAL.S, FOR RESPONDENT.


                This Contempt Of Court Case (civil)     having come for orders on

10/03/2021, the Court on the same day passed the following:
                                                                           P.T.O
                      ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                 ---------------------
           Contempt of Court Case No.2007 of 2020
             ---------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021

                              ORDER

For information purpose only It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the Writ Appeal preferred against the judgment had been

dismissed on 15.02.2021.

2. A verified petition has been placed on record by the

Standing Counsel. It is not in dispute that the matter has not

been taken up before the Apex Court in this particular case.

3. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion

that the pendency of an SLP in some other matter is not a reason

for refusal to comply with the directions of this Court. However,

in view of the submissions made by the learned Standing

Counsel, two weeks further time is granted to the respondents to

comply with the directions and to report before this Court.

Post on 30.03.2021.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bng

/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR