Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Thomas James vs R Jagadamma
2024 Latest Caselaw 5464 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5464 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Thomas James vs R Jagadamma on 16 February, 2024

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
         Friday, the 16th day of February 2024 / 27th Magha, 1945
 IA.NO.1/2024 IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 2875 OF 2023(S) IN WP(C) 34145/2023

APPLICANT/PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:


     THOMAS JAMES, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. JAMES,
     KUZHITHOTTATHIL [KUZHITHOTTIYIL] HOUSE, VALACHIRA,
     KADUTHURUTHY POST OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
     PIN CODE - 686 604.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:

  1. R JAGADAMMA, W/O RAVEENDRANATH, THE PRESIDENT, KAPPUMTHALA SERVICE
     COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 142, MUTTUCHIRA POST, KOTTAYAM
     DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 686 613.
  2. LISSY MOL GEORGE, W/O. SHAJI JOSEPH, THE SECRETARY, KAPPUMTHALA
     SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 142, MUTTUCHIRA POST, KOTTAYAM
     DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 686 613.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to re-open the above
Contempt of Court petition to rehear the same and proceed against the
respondents in accordance with law.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, this Court's judgment dated
23/01/2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. ARUN CHANDRAN,
HARIMOHAN, ANJALY T.A & ASWATHY S MENON, Advocates for the petitioner in
IA/COC and of SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along
with SMT.NISHA GEORGE, Advocate for the respondents in IA/COC, the court
passed the following:


                                                                P.T.O.
                  RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                -------------------------------------
              Cont.Case (C) No.2875 of 2023
               -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 16th day of February 2024


                              ORDER

This is an application to re-open the Contempt Case.

2. By order dated 23.1.2024, this Court had closed the

Contempt Case, holding that the respondents have practically complied

with the directions issued by this Court.

2. Sri. Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submitted that this Court while disposing of the matter, had

directed the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition to give effect to the

orders passed by the Joint Registrar as confirmed by the Tribunal. It is

submitted that in the letter produced in the Contempt Case, the post to

which the petitioner has been reinstated is not mentioned. It is stated

that the intention of the respondents is to reinstate the petitioner to an

inferior post.

I.A No.1 of 2024 in

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submitted that the application for re-opening the contempt is not

maintainable under law. He would point out that this Court had only

directed respondents 3 and 4 to give effect to the orders passed by the

Joint Registrar as confirmed by the Tribunal if the order has not been set

aside or varied. It is submitted that challenging the order passed by the

Tribunal, the respondents have preferred W.P.(C) No.5944 of 2024, and

the same is pending.

4. In response, Sri. Arun Chandran submitted that though a

writ petition has been filed, no interim order has been granted.

5. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that in

the Contempt Case, all that was ordered is that the order passed by the

Joint Registrar as confirmed by the Tribunal be implemented if the same

has not been varied or set aside. A letter has been issued by the

respondents requesting the petitioner to join. The petitioner assumes

that he would be reinstated only in an inferior post. If that be the case, it

would always be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in

appropriate proceedings. This Court while disposing of the matter had no I.A No.1 of 2024 in

occasion to delve into those aspects. If the respondents are acting in

violation to the orders passed by the Tribunal or of the Joint Registrar, it

is for the petitioner to mount a challenge in appropriate proceedings. I

find no reason to reopen the contempt case.

This application is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                      RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
                                                               JUDGE
   Sru




16-02-2024                           /True Copy/                             Deputy Registrar
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter