Remanded

V.Babu v. T.Baburaj

Kerala HC18 Oct 2010Con.Case(C)/499/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the High Court of Kerala addressed allegations of non-compliance with a prior judgment regarding payment of bill amounts. The Court noted both parties were mutually ready to pay and receive but failed due to estrangement. It ordered the parties to meet on a specified date for the handover of a cheque.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 22.07.2010 at 11 a.m. for the respondent to handover the cheque to the petitioner.

V.Babu Vs T.Baburaj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 499 of 2010(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17128/2009 Dated 03/08/2009

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

V.BABU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 72 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT "KAILAS", PATTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT

¶11

¶12

T.BABURAJ, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) EMPLOYED AS CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS & BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C. No. 499 of 2010

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2010

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner alleges noncompliance with the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. The judgment is regarding payment of bill amounts due to the petitioner. The respondent is ready to pay the amount. But apparently there is some bad blood between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that, it is not because of any fault on the respondent that the amount due to the petitioner could not be paid. A cheque was prepared and the petitioner was issued with a notice to collect the same. But he filed this contempt case in an attempt to get the cheque through this court is his contention. The learned Government Pleader further submits that this court should not allow the petitioner to convert this court into a post office. These allegations are stoutly denied by the petitioner. I am not inclined to go into

¶20

C.O.C. No. 499 of 2010

¶21

-2-

¶22

the disputed question of facts, in so far as the respondent is prepared to pay the cheque to the petitioner and the petitioner is prepared to accept the same from the respondent. In the above circumstances, this contempt case is closed with the following directions:

¶23

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 22.07.2010 at 11 a.m. The respondent shall handover that cheque to the petitioner on that day itself.

¶24

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶25

shg/

V.Babu v. T.Baburaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Babu v. T.Baburaj

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

C.D.Sasikumar Vs Dr.S.Raveendran I.A.S

Balish P.P. Vs the University of Calicut

Kanakarajan Vs State of Kerala

Sajay Joseph Vs Sri. R.S.Gujral, IAS

Superintending Engineer, Kochi Vs P.Krishnamoorthy

Naseema K.S. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others