In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged coercive action by respondents despite prior remittance of directed amounts. The Court noted admitted delays and non-payment of regular instalments. Holding no contumacious conduct, the Court dismissed the petition.
The contempt of court case was dismissed.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938
CON.CASE(C).NO. 717 OF 2016 (S) IN WP(C).2691/2016 ---------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2691/2016 DATED 22-02-2016
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
MADHURI AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRIKA, "UDAYAM", MUNDAYIL, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. RAMESH KAMMATH AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK, VARKALA (NRI BRANCH), STATION ROAD-OPP: RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.
2. VINOJ AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, VARKALA(NRI BRANCH), STATION ROAD - OPP: RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141.
BY ADV.SRI.S.B. PREMACHANDRA PRABHU
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C).NO. 717 OF 2016 (S) IN WP(C).2691/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2016 IN W.P. (C).NO.2691/2016
ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE NIL DATED.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P A TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................................... Contempt of Court Case(C).No.717 of 2016 ................................................................................ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The contempt of court case has been filed alleging that the respondents have, in violation of the directions in the judgment dated 22.02.2016, taken coercive action against the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had remitted amounts as directed in the judgment referred above. The facts in the contempt of court case itself would indicate that the petitioner had not strictly complied with the directions in the judgment referred above while effecting payments pursuant to the said judgment. It is admitted by the petitioner in the contempt case that there was a delay, albeit marginal, in the payment of the instalments directed in the judgment. That apart, it is not in dispute that the regular instalments that were directed to be paid simultaneously with the instalments of the defaulted amounts, were also not paid by the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that, the petitioner cannot contend that there has been any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents in initiating recovery steps
Contempt of Court Case(C).No.717 of 2016 -2-
pursuant to the default committed by the petitioner in complying with the directions in the judgment referred above. The contempt
of court case is dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/23.05.16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank respondents can be held in contempt for initiating recovery steps despite the petitioner remitting the amounts, given the petitioner's admitted delay and failure to pay regular instal
Whether the petitioner's contumacious conduct is established when she failed to strictly comply with payment directions in the impugned judgment.
Madhuri
Ramesh Kammath
Vinoy
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
