IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1093 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24187/2009 Dated 24/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER / PETITIONER ------------------------- DR. A.K.B. SADHBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE,KOYILANDY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANAGER DR. SANU JOHN KOVOOR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. K.A.ELIAS. BY ADV. MR. BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT. M.A.VAHEEDA BABU MR. JAGAN ABRAHAM M. GEORGE MR. P.G.PRAMOD MR. K.A.NOUSHAD RESPONDENT / 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- DR. T.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLELGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MRS. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) No. 1093 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September 2009. JUDGMENT Allegation in this Contempt of Court Case is that the respondent has taken an exception to Clause-15 in Annexure-A7 agreement, which reads as follows:- “ (15) This agreement is executed in pursuance to the direction dated 24.08.2009 in W.P.(C). No.24187/2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala “. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Babu Karukapadath submits that Annexure-A6 order shows that this Court had permitted the petitioner to sign the agreement without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. But that is different from saying that this Court had directed the petitioner to execute the above. Obviously, the execution of the agreement by the petitioner will be without prejudice to its contentions in W.P.(C).No.24187/2009 and therefore, I cannot say that the respondents are not justified in seeking a deletion of Clause-15, which was incorporated by the petitioner in the draft of the agreement that was forwarded by the respondent. CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) No. 1093 OF 2009 2 The Contempt of Court Case is closed, but it is clarified that an agreement sans the said Clause, will make no difference to the liberty that has already been reserved in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure A-6. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/