Dismissed

Sreeraj.S v. Thulasidharan Pillai

Kerala HC16 Feb 2017Con.Case(C)/61/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case filed alleging non-compliance with a one-month timeline for completing a sale process, the Court found that no actual judgment or specific directions were issued. Observing that the bank had taken possession and the objection was addressed by housing law precedents, the Court held no willful contempt was made out and dropped the case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dropped as no wilful contempt has been made out.

Sreeraj.S Vs Thulasidharan Pillai — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 61 of 2017 () IN WP(C).22346/2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22346/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-08-2016

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SREERAJ.S, S/O M.N.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MUNDAPPALLIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O., MANIMALA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, MANIMALA VILLAGE, MANIMALA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1 & THIRD PARTIES:

¶11

1. TULASIDHARAN PILLAI BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.CORPORATION BANK LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SY.NO.256-7-3, MALLAPPALLY JN. PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -689 645.

¶12

2. SRI. RAMACHANDRAN K. GENERAL MANAGER & CIRCLE HEAD, CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE, 38 & 39, WHITES ROAD, P.B.NO.2227, CHENNAI, PIN -600014.

¶13

3. SRI. RAMESH M. KAMAT

¶14

ZONAL HEAD, CORPORATION BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, APPORVA CHAMBERS, TC 14/2143(2), SUNNY MEADS LANE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034.

¶15

4. SRI. M.GANAPATHY SHENOY ZONAL HEAD, CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE, 35/3078, J & J1, 2 FLOOR, PUKALAKKATT BLDG., THAMMANAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶16

BY SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CONT.CASE (C) No.61/17

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22346/2016 DATED 10.8.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//True Copy//

PS to Judge

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

===============

¶27

Cont.Case (Civil) No.61 of 2017

¶28

==================

¶29

Dated this, the 16^th day of February, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This contempt case has been filed alleging wilful contempt of the directions issued by this Court. In fact, this Court did not pass any judgment issuing any directions. This Court had only taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition was closed. However, it was directed that the entire process has to be completed within a period of one month. It is submitted that the Bank had already taken possession of the secured asset and when the sale deed was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar had raised an objection.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the objection raised by the Sub Registrar is totally against the judgment of this Court in Housing Development Finance Corporation v. Sub Registry Officer (2011 (3) KLJ 561). In the light of the aforesaid judgment, there appears no impediment for the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed and there is no necessity to insist that the attachment should be shown in the document. Under such

¶33

Cont.Case (Civil) No.61/17

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue any proceedings

¶36

in the contempt case as no wilful contempt has been made out.

¶37

In the light of the observation made above, this contempt

¶38

case is dropped.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

P.S to Judge

Sreeraj.S v. Thulasidharan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeraj.S v. Thulasidharan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hadiya Firdouse Vs Abdul Vahab @ Vahab

Kunnummal Peruntha Basheer Vs Chakunnum Purath Annamma

M/S Vettathil Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Ebanezer Samji

The Commercial Tax Officer-I Vs N.Prakasan

V.v.Abraham Vs Chengannur Municipality