FR RAJU MARKOSE vs ST. MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, MANGALAM DAM POST, Advocate - ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER, ,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.),ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER,TINA ALEX THOMAS,HARIMOHAN,ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) — Con.APP(C) /10/2024
Case under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section Section 191(a). Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.
CNR: KLHC011376272024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
Con.APP(C) /9/2024
Filing Date
06-09-2024
Registration No
Con.APP(C) /10/2024
Registration Date
09-09-2024
Judge
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Coram
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Bench Type
Division
Category
23.01 Contempt Appeal(C) ( 85 )
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FR RAJU MARKOSE
Adv. SREENATH VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ,P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN ((PALAYIL),P.V.ELIAS,S.M.PRASANTH
THANKACHAN M.A
Adv. SREENATH VIJAYARAGHAVAN
SHAJU MARKOSE,
Adv. SREENATH VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Respondent(s)
ST. MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, MANGALAM DAM POST, Advocate - ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER, ,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.),ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER,TINA ALEX THOMAS,HARIMOHAN,ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
2. FR. MATHAI PANAMKUTTIYIL,
Adv. ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER TINA ALEX THOMAS(K/000532/
HARIMOHAN(K/000327/
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-
FR. SAM VARGHESE,
Adv. ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER,S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER TINA ALEX THOMAS(K/000532/
HARIMOHAN(K/000327/
ROSHEN D. ALEXANDER S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-
DR VENU V IAS
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
T K JOSE IAS
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
SHEIKH DARVESH SHAHIB
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
DR S CHITRA IAS
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
R ANAND IPS
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
DR AMRITHAVALLI P.,
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
ASHOKAN R
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
SHABEER S
Adv. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER() ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
FR VARGHESE PALATHINKAL
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN , HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FOR JUDGEMENT
FOR ORDERS
FOR ORDERS
FOR JUDGEMENT
FOR JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | FOR JUDGEMENT | |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR ORDERS | |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR ORDERS | |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR JUDGEMENT | |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR JUDGEMENT |
Orders
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Summary of Kerala High Court Judgment (2024:KER:77264) The Kerala High Court dismissed 12 contempt appeals filed against a lower court's order directing district collectors to take possession of disputed Orthodox Syrian Churches to enforce compliance with earlier writ petitions based on Supreme Court precedent K.S.Varghese v. St.Peters' and Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333, which guaranteed parishioners' rights to enter churches and conduct religious services according to church constitutions. The court held that despite repeated attempts, police failed to enforce these directions due to obstruction by appellants, constituting willful civil contempt; moreover, the court possesses inherent power to prevent contemnors from enjoying fruits of their contempt by impleading implementing authorities and issuing positive directions to restore status quo and facilitate judgment enforcement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Summary of Kerala High Court Judgment (2024:KER:77264) The Kerala High Court dismissed 12 contempt appeals filed against a lower court's order directing district collectors to take possession of disputed Orthodox Syrian Churches to enforce compliance with earlier writ petitions based on Supreme Court precedent K.S.Varghese v. St.Peters' and Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333, which guaranteed parishioners' rights to enter churches and conduct religious services according to church constitutions. The court held that despite repeated attempts, police failed to enforce these directions due to obstruction by appellants, constituting willful civil contempt; moreover, the court possesses inherent power to prevent contemnors from enjoying fruits of their contempt by impleading implementing authorities and issuing positive directions to restore status quo and facilitate judgment enforcement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts