Disposed

Joseph Kavalam v. Reghunathan

Kerala HC9 Nov 2011Con.Case(C)/859/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed a contempt of court case after the respondent clarified via affidavit that a statement alleging symbolic possession was due to inadvertent omission and no recovery proceedings were initiated, permitting the petitioner to continue proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of court case closed; petitioner permitted to pursue matter before Rent Control Court or Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Joseph Kavalam Vs Reghunathan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 859 of 2011(S)

¶6

---------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9803/2011 Dated 01/06/2011

¶7

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

¶8

JOSEPH KAVALAM, S/O.K.M.GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS, KAVALAM ROYAL SQUARE, COLLEGE ROAD, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY, 686 101.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): FIRST RESPONDENT

¶11

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

¶12

S.RAGHUNATHAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, KAVALA BRANCH, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.S.RAMU

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.859/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 01/06/2011 IN WP(C)NO.9803/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEX A2	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14TH JUNE 2011 IN I.A.NO.8939/2011 IN WP (C)NO.9803/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEX A3	COPY OF THE I.A.NO.723/2011 IN RCP.NO.8/2010 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHANGANASSERY.
ANNEX A4	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23/06/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.723/2011 IN RCP.NO.8/2010 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHANGANASSERY.
ANNEX A5	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2011 IN I.A.NO.723/2011 IN RCP.NO.8/2010 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHANGANASSERY.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶25

Con. Case (C) No. 859 OF 2011

¶26

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Through Annexure-A1 judgment, this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act for a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment. It is alleged the in violation of the said direction the respondents herein had filed written objections to I.A No.723/2011 in RCP No.8/2010 which is pending on the files of Rent Control Court, Changanassery, stating that the respondent Bank had taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property in proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that the statement made as above was factually incorrect and it amounts to violation of the terms of Annexure-A1 judgment.

¶29

In an affidavit filed by the respondent it is specifically mentioned that it is only due to inadvertent omission on the part of the counsel appearing before the

¶30

Con. Case (c) No.859/2011 -2-

¶31

Rent Control Court that such a statement was filed. It is further clarified that the respondent had not initiated any proceedings of recovery during the period specified in Annexure-A1 judgment in which restriction was imposed against such steps.

¶32

In view of the affidavit filed as above, I am of the view that the contempt of court case can be closed, making it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the Rent Control Court or the Debt Recovery Tribunal or in any other appropriate proceedings, notwithstanding the statements filed by the respondents in I.A No.723/2011 in RCP No.8/2010 about taking over symbolic possession of the property, which is not factually incorrect.

¶33

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶34

AMG

¶35

True copy

¶36

P.A to Judge

Joseph Kavalam v. Reghunathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Kavalam v. Reghunathan

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

The State Bank of India and 2 Others Vs Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

Gracy Vs the Taluk Land Board

C.S.Sanal Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Subodayan Vs Joint Registrar and Others

K.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala & Others

Smt.Noorjahan Vs Union of India