Dismissed

Raveendran v. Sahadevan

Kerala HC3 Oct 2008Con.Case(C)/824/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt of court petition alleged the petitioner was served with a judgment directing him to deposit dues to receive a clearance certificate issued by the respondent, a Welfare Fund Inspector. The court examined materials and conflicting witness statements regarding the remittance of dues and issuance of clearance certificates. It found no case of wilful disobedience and dismissed the petiti

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed with no case of wilful disobedience made out against the respondent.

Raveendran Vs Sahadevan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 824 of 2008(S) -------------------------------------------JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.8703/2008 DATED 14/03/2008. ....................

¶4

PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------

¶5

RAVEENDRAN,S/O. PAPPU PILLA, THEKKEYIL HOUSE, MANAKKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR, SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL.

¶7

RESPONDENT/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

¶8

------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

SAHADEVAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THODUPUZHA.

¶10

ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD.

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

prv.

¶13

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶15

Cont.Case(C).No.824 of 2008-S

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2008.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

1.This contempt of court case is filed on the allegation that the petitioner Raveendran was not issued a clearance certificate by the respondent, who is the Welfare Fund Inspector under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board on deposit of 50% of the dues for the abkari year ending 31-3-2008, following the direction contained in the judgment dated 14-3-2008.

¶19

2.In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that on 26-3-2008, Shri.Krishnan T.S. had approached the office of the Welfare Fund Inspector and sought for clearance certificate and he requested a chalan in the name of the petitioner Raveendran. In view of that statement, Shri.T.S.Krishnan was asked to appear and he was

¶20

COC824/08 -: 2 :-

¶21

administered oath and examined. He states that he had not requested for issuance of chalan in the name of Raveendran. He also states that after chalan was issued for remittance, petitioner Raveendran had himself paid the amounts and cleared the outstandings.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states, on the query of this Court, that the petitioner had participated in the auction for the current abkari year also.

¶23

4.Going by the materials, it appears that the petitioner Raveendran, the witness Krishnan T.S. and Govindan and Benny Kurian were licensees who had jointly obtained the licence for toddy shops in Group No.10 of Thodupuzha Range for the abkari year 2007-08. So much so, their liability is joint and several and any private arrangement between them regarding vending from the shops, for their commercial convenience, need not be taken note of by the officials. Neither the

¶24

COC824/08 -: 3 :-

¶25

Abkari officials nor the Toddy workers Welfare Fund Inspector could be tied down to act in terms of those arrangements. This essentially was the reason why even the judgment dated 14-3-2008 was issued by stating that the clearance certificate shall be issued if the petitioner is entitled to a clearance certificate on remittance of 50% of the dues for the current abkari year.

¶26

On the facts in hand, I am satisfied that no case of wilful disobedience could be attributed to the respondent and that action under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be sustained.

¶27

For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt of court case is dismissed.

¶28

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/041008

Raveendran v. Sahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. Sahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Thulasi Devi Vs Kerala State Co.Op.Employees Pension Boa

The Board of Directors of Mukkom Scb Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

G.R.Ramachandran Vs Authorized Officer & Anr.

V.P.Ashraf Vs State Bank of India & Another

James Mathew Vs the State Co-Operative Election

Nnriam George Vs the State Bank of Travancore and Others