Kerala High Court
Prof.M. K. Sanoo vs Inbasekar K on 2 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 272 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 602/2021 AND 688/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.1.2022
PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN WA:
PROF.M. K. SANOO, AGED 93 YEARS
S/O. MANGALATH M.C. KESAVAN, SANDHYA, KARIKKAMURI, KOCHI-682 011.
BY ADVS.P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN WA:
INBASEKAR K., INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAYOR R.
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
BY ADV.ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.G.P.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 272 OF 2022
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2022
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Contending inter alia that the directions issued by this court in
W.A.Nos.602 and 688 of 2021 have not been complied with in letter and
spirit, instant contempt petition is filed.
2. Rebutting the averments and based on the order dated 30.1.22
passed by the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, a
detailed affidavit dated 18th February 2022 has been filed for which, the
petitioner has filed reply affidavit dated 25th February, 2022.
3. That apart, submission is also made by Sri.K.P.Harish, learned
Senior Government Pleader that challenging the abovesaid order, a
separate W.P.(C)No.6322/22 has also been filed.
4. Mr.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner
submitted that the respondent has failed to independently consider the
matter; erred by relegating the matter to be decided in the civil court and
thus failed to exercise his jurisdiction. He also submitted that Annexure
D order, dated 30.1.22 passed by the Inspector General of Registration,
Thiruvananthapuram is without providing a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for
CON.CASE(C) NO. 272 OF 2022
:: 3 ::
initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 against the respondent.
5. However, we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by
the petitioner for the reason that the respondent/Inspector General of
Registration, Thiruvananthapuram has passed a detailed order, taking
note of the contents of the representation, as well as the statutory
provisions.
6. After considering the contention of rival parties, respondent/
Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram has taken a
decision that the parties should approach the competent civil court, for
appropriate remedy. As stated supra, the abovesaid order dated 30.1.22
is also under challenge in W.P.(C)No.6322/22.
7. We find nothing contumacious in the decision taken by the
respondent for initiating proceedings under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In the light of the above, Contempt of Court Case is closed.
SD/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
jes JUDGE
CON.CASE(C) NO. 272 OF 2022
:: 4 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2021 IN WPC NO. 19266/2020.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/03/2021 IN RP NO.113/2021 IN WPC NO.
19266/2020.
Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/01/2022 IN WA NO.602/2021
AND 688/2021.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IGR/4487/2020-L3 DATED 30/01/2022 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT.
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE FAQ ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
