Disposed

Asoka Kumar V.C v. Dr.W.R.Reddy

Kerala HC1 Feb 2016Con.Case(C)/1711/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala HC disposed of contempt cases alleging non-compliance of a judgment regarding license fee refunds. The Court held that since the lower court only directed parties to approach competent authorities for refund and did not mandate immediate payment of interest, no wilful contempt was established.

What did the court decide?

The contempt cases were closed. The right of the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law was reserved.

Asoka Kumar V.C Vs Dr.W.R.Reddy — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1711 of 2015 (S) IN OP.10088/2003

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 10088/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-06-2015

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶8

ASOKA KUMAR V.C AGED 53 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PROPRIETOR KEERTHI PALACE RESTAURANT, PATTANAKADU, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3:

¶11

1. DR.W.R.REDDY, I.A.S, THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. ANIL X. , I.AS

¶13

EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶14

3. ABDUL KALAM

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶16

BY GOVT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2016, ALONG WITH COC. 1712/2015, COC. 1716/2015, COC. 1719/2015, COC. 1780/2015, COC. 1781/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 1711 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2015 IN OP.NO.10088/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2246/2006 & CONNECTED CASE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE CITATION, CHITRA VS. STATE OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2015(3) KLT 956 (SC). ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.9.2015 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T3-2653/1990 DATED 1.10.2015 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.

kp/-

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C.O.(C). Nos. 1711, 1712, 1716, 1719, 1780 & 1781 of 2015

¶28

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶29

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

These contempt matters have been filed alleging non compliance of common judgment dated 23.6.2015 of a Division Bench of this Court.

¶33

The petitioners herein were given FL-3 licences under the Abkari Act/Foreign Liquor Rules. They were required to satisfy the entire KIST amount for the year in question by virtue of Rule 14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court and therefore the Division Bench in the above judgment opined that as far as the claim for refund is concerned, since the issue is pending consideration before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2246 of 2006, on a favourable decision being obtained by the parties in the said case, it will be open for the aggrieved parties to move the competent authority claiming refund. It was also observed that the rights and liberties in this regard stand saved and protected.

¶34

The Supreme Court by judgment dated 21.8.2015 allowed the Civil Appeal filed by one Chithra and M/s Cochin Wines and Drugs

¶35

C.O.C.No.1711/15 & con.cases -2-

¶36

by which a direction was issued that the Government shall recalculate the proportionate amount of licence fee payable by the appellant for the period from 25.3.2003 to 31.3.2003 and the amount has to be refunded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The submission made by the petitioners is that the respondents were under obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in view of the positive direction issued by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 23.6.2015.

¶37

During the pendency of these contempt cases, it is submitted that the Government had refunded the principal amount payable to them on the basis of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. However, no interest had been computed or paid to the petitioners.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader submits that, though the petitioners are entitled for refund, in so far as the Division Bench did not direct payment of interest for the belated payment, and has only permitted the petitioners to approach the competent authority to claim refund, there is no wilful contempt on the part of the respondents.

¶39

Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench and having gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court, as far as these contempt cases are concerned, we do not think that there is any wilful contempt being committed by the respondents herein. The Division Bench had after keeping open the rights of the parties with reference to their claim for refund observed as under:

¶40

C.O.C.No.1711/15 & con.cases -3-

¶41

“On such an event, it will be open for the aggrieved parities to move the competent authority claiming refund. The rights and liberties in this regard stand saved and protected.”

¶42

There is no direction in the judgment that the amounts as directed by the Supreme Court has to be paid. The only direction given was that, they are entitled to make a claim before the competent authority.

¶43

Under such circumstances, if at all there is any further claim

¶44

based on the direction issued by the Division Bench, it amounts to fresh cause of action and cannot be read as a wilful contempt committed by the respondents.

¶45

In the said circumstances, reserving the right of the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, these contempt cases are closed.

¶46

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶48

kp/-01.02.16

Asoka Kumar V.C v. Dr.W.R.Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asoka Kumar V.C v. Dr.W.R.Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Babu Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm), Kseb

Ammini K.A. Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.South India Produce Co. Vs Union of India

Jayakumar.N Vs Ajeer

Judish Vs St.Judes Shrine

Marine Products Exports Development Authority Vs K.Prabhavathy Murugesan