In this contempt case, the petitioner alleged the respondent violated a direction to pay loan installments by causing full payment. The court found the respondent’s version uncredible but, as the loan was settled, dropped proceedings without refunding or punishing the respondent.
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
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/23RD POUSHA 1933
COC.No. 1253 of 2011 (S)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.30184/2011 DATED 14-11-2011.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DENNISON, S/O.SCARIA, AGED 45 YEARS, KANDANKULANGARA HOUSE, KALLAR ROAD, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO.
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
BABU,
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CHELAKKAR, THRISSUR- 680 586.
BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC., SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.S.RAMU, SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs
COC.No. 1253 of 2011 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/11 IN WP(C) NO. 30184 OF 2011 (W) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE R1A COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.28 FOR Rs.4,25,244/- ISSUED ON 17/11/2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
Contempt Case (C) No. 1253 of 2011
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges violation of directions in judgment dated 14.11.2011 in W.P.(C) No.30184/11 in which I directed as follows:
“The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.12.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard.”
The petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained certified copy of the judgment on 17.11.2011 and immediately produced the
same before the respondent. The sale was posted to 17.11.2011. Despite the fact that the judgment was made known to the respondent, the respondent insisted on the petitioner paying the entire amount and to save the property the petitioner’s father and brother were forced to borrow money from
C.O..(C) No.1253/11 2
several persons to pay the entire amount. According to the petitioner, this amounts to violation of directions in the judgment.
It is difficult to accept the version of the respondent.
After having obtained a judgment on 14.11.2011 in the presence of the Advocate for the bank, I do not think that the petitioner would voluntarily pay the amount as contended by the respondent. As such I am not quite happy with the conduct of the respondent. However, now that the loan account has been settled by payment I am not inclined to direct the respondent to refund the amount or to take action against the respondent. Therefore, I drop further proceedings in this Contempt Case.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
C.O..(C) No.1253/11 3
C.O..(C) No.1253/11 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to punish the respondent for conducting settlement proceedings contrary to the terms of the prior judgment directing installment payments.
Whether to grant the petition alleging violation of directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 30184/11.
Dennison
Babu
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
