Dismissed

V.K. Kunjamma v. A.E. Jacob

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012Con.Case(C)/995/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with a judgment directing pension payment, the accused bank argued they had not paid due to disputes over non-pension items like salary arrears. The judge found the contempt order unclear and dropped the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings were dropped due to lack of willful contempt and ambiguity in the original order.

V.K. Kunjamma Vs A.E. Jacob — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 995 of 2012 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.29839/2011 DATED 02/02/2012 CORRECTED BY ORDER DATED 06/03/2012 IN I.A.NO.2183/2012 IN WP(C)29839/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C)

¶8

V.K. KUNJAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, KURUNGAZHA P.O.,PULLAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 548

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C)

¶11

A.E. JACOB

¶12

THE GENERAL MANAGER-IN -CHARGE, THE THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3260, ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 542

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶14

SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MJL

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 995 of 2012 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE I	:	JUDGMENT DATED 02/02/2012 IN W.P.(C)NO.29839/11 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE II	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/02/2012 SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE III	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2012 IN I.A.NO.2183 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C)29839/11 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE IV	:	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 23/05/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN COC NO.616/12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE V	:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/05/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.616/2012
ANNEXURE VI	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC11/12 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REGISTRAR
ANNEXURE VII	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2012 PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE

MJL

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

----------------------------------------------------------Contempt Case (C) No. 995 of 2012 -S ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This contempt application is filed for non-compliance of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29839/2011 and by virtue of this judgment, the 2^nd respondent was directed to pay “all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”. The respondent had filed an affidavit stating that since the direction was only to pay the pensionary benefits, the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- had already been paid. In regard to other amount which are claimed by the complainant, according to the respondent, those amounts does not come within the purview of the pensionary benefits and in view of certain disputes between the management and the retired employee, the said amount had not been released.

¶29

The learned counsel for the complainant relies upon Annexure VI. According to him, admittedly an amount of Rs.

¶30

Contempt Case (C) No. 995 of 2012 - S

¶31

¶32

6,24,588/- is due which includes gratuity, leave surrender and the arrears of salary. The amounts like salary and arrears of salary is admittedly not paid because of the pending dispute between the parties.

¶33

The question is whether there is any willful contempt on the part of the respondent herein. Though the petitioner had sought for retirement benefits, leave surrender amount, arrears of salary etc., while granting relief, this Court had only mentioned as “pensionary benefits”. Since the respondent had taken a contention that the pensionary benefits does not include arrears of salary or leave surrender amount, it may not be possible for this Court to proceed with the contempt as such.

¶34

Hence, prima facie, I do not think that there is willful contempt on the part of the petitioner. Whether this Court had intended for payment of the entire amount or payment of pensionary benefits alone is not clear from the judgment. Under such circumstances, it may not be possible for this Court to proceed with the contempt any further.

¶35

Contempt Case (C) No. 995 of 2012 - S

¶36

¶37

In that view of the matter, I do not think that there is any reason to proceed with the contempt. Hence the same is dropped.

¶38

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶39

rka

V.K. Kunjamma v. A.E. Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Kunjamma v. A.E. Jacob

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

Bhadrasenan Vs Rakhi

Manikandan Vs Suresh Kumar B

Geetha.C.K. Vs Philomina.a.v.

Jalaludheen Vs the District Collector,Tvm

George Paulose Vs Corporation Bank

Rajidas Vs the Registrar