In a contempt proceeding, the High Court of Kerala found that the respondents failed to comply with a judgment from 2005 despite an earlier order providing them three weeks to act. Finding the delay unreasonable, the Court awarded ₹5,000 costs against the respondents personally.
Respondents to pay costs of ₹5,000 to the petitioner within one month.
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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 533 of 2009(S) -----------------------------(O.P.No. 21557/2000)
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
K.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PONMALIL HOUSE, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
Contempt Case (C).No. 533 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T
This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of noncompliance with Annexure A1 judgment, which was passed as early as on 23.9.2005. More than five years have passed by after the judgment. I passed an order on 3.11.2010 as follows;
“Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the respondents are taking steps to give the benefits of Annexure A1 judgment to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General seeks three weeks' time. In any event, Annexure A1 judgment is dated 23.9.2005. Five years are too long period for implementing a judgment. Only because the learned Assistant Solicitor General assures this Court that the judgment would be complied with within three weeks, I adjourn this case by three weeks.
Post on 29.11.2010. If Annexure A1 judgment is not fully complied with by then, the respondents shall appear in person on that day.”
The same itself was passed after issuing notice on 19.6.2009. Today,
the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that orders have been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been unreasonably harassed by the respondents for getting his due benefits, right for which has been upheld by this Court. It is also pointed out that an appeal and a review petition filed by the respondents in the writ petition were also dismissed. In the above circumstances, while closing the contempt case, I am inclined to award costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents shall personally
c.c.c.533/09 2
pay costs of ` 5,000/- to the petitioner, within one month. The same shall not be debited to the exchequer and shall be recovered from the respondents personally.
sdk+
Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt for non-compliance with a judgment dated 23.09.2005.
K.SIVARAMA PILLAI
C.V.GEORGE
RAJEEV KUMAR
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
