In a contempt case regarding compliance with a prior judgment, the High Court awarded costs to the petitioner for expenses incurred in obtaining an advocate commission to verify compliance, directing respondents to pay Rs. 5,000 each.
Respondents directed to pay Rs. 5,000 each to the petitioner for expenses incurred in taking out an advocate commission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2007 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1928
Con.Case(C).No. 116 of 2006(S)
-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.1311/1995 Dated 30/05/2005
PETITIONER:(PETITIONER IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION):
K. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O. KARUVANCHERY KALLYANIAMMA, PUTHUSSERY DESOM, P.O. COONDAL, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH
SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.V.S.ROBIN
RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION):
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI SRI.SUDHEESH.A.
SRI.VENUGOPALAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cont. Case (C) No. 116 of 2006
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 22nd February, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finally the judgment has been fully complied with yesterday. But, he points out that he had to fight tooth and nail against the Government officers to see that the judgment is complied with incurring in the process huge expenses including the batta for taking out an advocate Commission to prove that the affidavit filed by the respondent does not portray the real fact situation, which stand of the petitioner has been vindicated by the report of the Commissioner. In the above circumstances, he submits that costs may be awarded to him in this contempt case.
Accordingly, the respondents shall pay Rs. 5,000/- each as costs to the petitioner towards the expenses incurred by him for taking out the commission. But, it is pointed out that the officer who was initially in charge and bound to comply with the directions in the judgment has changed and the present respondent took charge only
C.O.C. No. 116/2006 -: 2 :-
later. I make it clear that the State shall see that the officers who were to comply with the judgment at the time of passing the judgment shall bear the costs. The contempt case is closed with the above direction.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether costs should be awarded to the petitioner for expenses incurred in taking out an advocate commission to verify compliance with a prior judgment.
Whether the State can shift the liability for costs to the successor officer rather than the officer originally responsible for compliance.
K. Prabhakaran Nair
Joseph
P. Swaminathan
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
