Dismissed

Induchudan G. v. a.Purushothaman

Kerala HC6 Jun 2018Con.Case(C)/624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case, the court held that the previous judgment's observation about releasing amounts if the petitioner is found innocent was explanatory justification for retention, not a binding direction to finalize an enquiry. The contempt case was closed, though the petitioner remains free to pursue remedies against the Staff Co-operative Society.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case was closed (dismissed). The petitioner is retained at liberty to pursue remedies against the KSFE Staff Co-operative Society to obtain a certification of non-liability.

Induchudan G. Vs a.Purushothaman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 624 of 2018

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.17967/2017 of THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 06.7.2017.

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

INDUCHUDAN G., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P.GOURIDASAN NAIR, SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, (RETIRED), RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, EROOR WEST, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 306.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.NAVEEN.T SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SMT.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.V.S.ABHISHEK

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

A.PURUSHOTHAMAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE : NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., "BHADRATHA", P.B.NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR - 682 020.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 624 of 2018

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES

¶17

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.2017 IN WPC.NO.17967/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 28.11.2017 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SENT TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.6.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

ANENXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO.4539 ISSUED BY THE DY.MANAGER, KSFE, ALUVA MAIN BRANCH.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES

¶22

ANNEXURE R1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION ON 17TH OF JANUARY 2018. ANNEXURE R1B TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE KSFE STAFF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DATED 24TH OF JANUARY 2018.

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

08.06.2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 624 OF 2018

¶29

Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This contempt of court case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directions contained in the judgment, dated 06.07.2017 is not complied with. In order to have a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the contempt of court case, it is only proper that the relevant paragraph is quoted. Paragraph 5 of the judgment read thus:-

¶32

“5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to retain the amount as is claimed in the coercive action and release the balance amount to the petitioner remaining due on account of the retiral benefits, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within one month. I also make it clear that if the subject matter is settled on the basis of any enquiry conducted or otherwise and if the petitioner is found to be innocent in the matter, all other balance amounts shall be released without any further delay.”

¶33

Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 624 OF 2018

¶34

¶35

According to the petitioner, the observation

¶36

made by this Court with respect to release of the amount, if the petitioner is found to be innocent after conduct of any enquiry, is a direction issued by this Court and since the said direction is not complied with there is a clear contempt committed by the respondent.

¶37

A statement is filed by the respondent refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶39

The sole issue to be considered in this contempt

¶40

of court case is whether on the basis of the second part of the directions contained and quoted above, is there any violation of the directions. In my considered opinion, the observation made by me in the second part of the directions quoted above is only to justify the circumstances under which I directed the respondents to retain a portion of the amount and release the balance to

¶41

Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 624 OF 2018

¶42

¶43

the petitioner. That cannot be treated as a direction, and it cannot be said that the respondents were expected to finalise any enquiry proceedings and release the amount to the petitioner especially due to the fact that the issue with respect to the retention of the amount directed by this Court is on account of the claims raised by the KSFE Staff Co-operative Society. That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that there is no contempt.

¶44

Therefore, the contempt of court case is closed. However, I make it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue any remedy against the KSFE Staff Cooperative Society, in accordance with law and ultimately if any document is produced by which it is certified by the KSFE Staff Co-operative Society that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the Society, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited shall release the balance amount to the petitioner, without any delay.

¶45

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶46

DCS

Induchudan G. v. a.Purushothaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Induchudan G. v. a.Purushothaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Radhakrishnan Vs Sujesh Sathyandran

M/S.Hotel Dona Castle Vs Rishira Singh, IPS

Ratheesh R. Vs Deepa

Eldose K.G Vs Smt. a Shinamol I.A.S

P.a.Babu Vs S.a.Sajna

M/S.K.P.Pathrose Vaidan'S Kandamkulathy Vaidysala Vs M/S.Kandamkulathi Francis Vaidyan'S Ayurveda Vaidyasala (P) Ltd.