BHEEMAN K K Vs. HIGH FOREST ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant herein, second respondent in W. M. P. No. 4714 of 1995 and petitioner in W. M. P. No. 20744 of 1998 in WP No. 2927 of 1995 has filed the above contempt application to punish the respondent for not complying with the order, dated March 1, 1999 in W. M. P. No. 20745 of 1998 in W. P. No. 2927 of 1995 of this Court.

(2.) AFTER going through the order of this Court, dated March 11, 1999, in the said applications, more particularly, in view of Clause 6, this Court expressed its doubt regarding maintainability of the present contempt application. Since in the very same order it was made clear that failing compliance of any one of the conditions referred to therein, the stay order shall stand vacated automatically, this Court directed the learned counsel for the applicant to serve a copy of the contempt application, affidavit and other connected papers on the counsel for the management. As directed the respondent-management is represented by a counsel and also filed an affidavit highlighting their stand with regard to the averments made by the petitioner. At this juncture it is necessary for me to go into the allegation whether the respondent has disobeyed the order of this Court, dated March 11, 1999, and punishment is to be imposed on them.

(3.) HEARD Sri K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Sri P. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned counsel for the respondent-management.