Disposed

Aringath Kelan v. Smt.Ishitha Roy

Kerala HC7 Nov 2013Con.Case(C)/941/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition filed by a guarantor was closed by the court. The court held it inequitable to proceed with the sale of the guarantor's property under the Welfare Fund Act, given prior directions to proceed against licensee's property first and the recent set-aside of a similar auction in related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed and no further proceedings regarding the sale of the guarantor's property will be entertained at this stage.

Aringath Kelan Vs Smt.Ishitha Roy — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 941 of 2008 (S)

¶6

-------------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP.NO. 19570/2002 DATED 25-11-2002)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶8

ARINGATH KELAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHELERI, KANNADIPARAMBA CHELERI AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SMT. ISHITHA ROY,

¶12

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶13

2. M.RAMACHANDRAN,

¶14

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, JILLA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR.

¶15

3. C.M. GOPINATHAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

4. MR. BHASKARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DEPUTY THASILDAR (R.R), THALIPARAMBA.

¶17

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

¶18

*ADDL.R5: C.M.MURALEEDHARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶19

*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/11/2013 IN I.A.NO.600/2008

2/-

sts

-2-

COC.NO.941/2008

*ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED

¶25

*ADDL.R6: E.K.VASUMATHI,W/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 67 YEARS,'MINISHA', KAVUMBHAGOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶26

*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/11/2013 IN I.A.NO.206/2012

¶27

R1,R3 & R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN R2 BY SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD ADDL.R6 BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶28

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.941/2008

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶33

ANNEX 1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.P.6928/2000, 12297/2000 AND 19570/2002 DATED 25/11/2002
ANNEX II	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/1/2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
ANNEX III	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/7/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEX IV	COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL
ANNEX V	COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
ANNEX VI	COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 24/11/2007 IN WP(C) NO.32671/2007
RESPONDEN	T'S ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.33443/2000
ANNEX A2	COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.3192/2000 IN OP.NO.1992/2000
ANNEX R5(A)	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/12/2008 GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY
ANNEX R5(B)	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14/9/2009 GIVEN BY THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY
ANNEX R5(C)	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THALASSERY
ANNEX R5(D)	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/2/2012 GIVEN BY A MOIDEEN, CHETTAMCOON, THALASSERY

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.C No.941 OF 2008

¶40

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2013

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The petitioner is only a guarantor whose property can be sold for realisation of the dues under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act only after proceeding against the property of the licensees. The direction to that effect contained in the common judgment dated 25.11.2002 in O.P.No.12297/2000 has been directed to be followed in W.P.(C) No.24407/2009 as well filed by one of the licensees. The auction sale of the property of the licensee (E.K. Vasumathi) has been set aside by judgment dated 07.11.2013 in W.P.(C) No.24407/2009 and fresh sale directed to be conducted.

¶43

It is inequitable therefore to proceed with this contempt case filed apprehending sale of the property of the guarantor before conducting the sale of the property of the licensees. The contempt case is accordingly closed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶46

Shg/

Aringath Kelan v. Smt.Ishitha Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aringath Kelan v. Smt.Ishitha Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reji M.Poulose Vs Ms. Baby Joseph P.

G.Jayan Vs the Authorized Officer

Joshy Varghese Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sevashram Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

E.K.Vasumathi Vs the Tahsildar(Rr) Tly. and Others

V.P.Rasheed Vs Union of India