Contempt case dismissed. Court held the petitioner failed to comply with remaining terms of the Respondent's communication regarding payment of licence fee and bank guarantee, as per prior writ judgment.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017/30TH ASHADHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 746 of 2017 (S)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3165/2017 DATED 03-02-2017 ----------------
PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:
MANOJ S.VISWAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.SIVAPRASAD, MANAGING PARTNER, JUPITER ADS, C-1, PRIYADARSHINI, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, KOCHI-682020.
BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
M.G.RAJAMANYKYAM, AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING PARTNER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC SRI.T.P SAJAN, SC,
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
Con.Case(C).No. 746 of 2017 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K.V.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------Cont. Case.(C).No.746 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21st day of July, 2017
J U D G M E N T
This contempt case is instituted alleging non-
compliance of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C). No.3165 of 2017.
Cont.Case.(c).No.746 of 2017
: 2 :
awarded the right. Annexure R(a) is the communication issued by the Corporation to the petitioner in response to the claim made by the petitioner for the benefit of the said provision in the tender. As per Annexure R(a), the petitioner was informed that for extending the term of the contract, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,62,500/- towards licence fee and a sum of Rs.3,75,500/- towards security deposit. It was, however, made clear in the said communication that the petitioner need pay only one fourth of the licence fee for the time being and he is free to furnish Bank Guarantee/solvency certificate for the balance 75% of the licence fee. Annexure R(a) communication was under challenge in the writ petition.
Cont.Case.(c).No.746 of 2017 : 3 :
the terms of the contract during the initial tenure, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the one fourth of the licence fee in two instalments of which 50% was directed to be paid within two weeks and the balance within another one week.
Cont.Case.(c).No.746 of 2017 : 4 :
petitioner only prayed for indulgence to remit 25% of the licence fee in instalments and as per the judgment rendered in the writ petition, this Court only permitted the petitioner to pay the said portion of the licence fee in two instalments. The remaining terms in Annexure R(a) communication have not been interfered with by this Court. As such, the petitioner is bound to comply with the remaining terms stipulated in Annexure R(a) communication. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the security deposit nor did he furnish bank guarantee for the 75% of the licence fee.
Cont.Case.(c).No.746 of 2017 : 5 :
that the respondent has not complied with the direction contained in the judgment cannot be accepted. The Contempt Case, in the circumstances, is without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE
rsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is in contempt for not furnishing bank guarantee/solvency certificate for 75% of the licence fee as stipulated in the Respondent's communication.
MANOJ S.VISWAM
M.G.RAJAMANYKYAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
