TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 669 of 2010(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.784/2010 Dated 16/03/2010 ....................

¶5

PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)No.784/10:

¶6

¶7

NAJEEB, TC.4/635,FATHIMAM, SREEVILAS LANE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)No.784/10: -------------------------------------------------------DR.AJAYIKUMAR IAS, DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT (IMG),VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

¶10

ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶11

SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶14

------------------------------------Contempt Case(C)No.669 of 2010-S ----------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JULY, 2010

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this court in Annexure A judgment, this Contempt of Court Case has been filed. The direction issued by this Court was to take appropriate action to pay the undisputed amount covered by the final bill within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, if all the other conditions are satisfied with regard to the execution of the work.

¶17

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is pointed out in paragraph 3 that the bill was examined and the Consultant Chief Engineer noted that the Contractor has yet to carry out the construction of cupboards in ordinary rooms (19 nos.) and VVIP rooms (4 nos.) and yet to fix granite slabs over ferro-cement slabs in the rooms. He also noted that certain extra items of works were carried out as per the directions of Planning and Development Committee during site visits. The total cost of 34 nos. of extra items works out to Rs.2,30, 444/-. The respondent, evidently, has disbursed

¶18

COC.No.669/10 -2-

¶19

an amount of Rs.6,13,317/- which is described as the undisputed amount covered by the bill for the works done as per the original tender.

¶20

With regard to the claim of the petitioner for the remaining amount, as there are disputes between the parties now, the petitioner will have to work out his remedies in other proceedings. The direction issued by this Court is only to disburse the undisputed amount which have been complied with by the respondent. Therefore, no action is warranted under the Contempt of Courts Act and the Contempt of Court Case is dismissed. The same will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to enforce his claim for the balance amount before the appropriate forum.

¶21

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶22

dsn

Najeeb v. Dr.Ajayikumar IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Najeeb v. Dr.Ajayikumar IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Jayasankar Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Chandramai Vs Pramadom Grama Panchayat

E.K.Zakeer Shamnad and Another Vs the General Manager

P.R. Sabu Vs T. Bhaskaran I.A.S

T.Abdul Azeez Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh

Narayanan Nair Vs T.N.Babu