In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of directions to pay delayed amount with interest, the petitioner submitted that the amount was received in accordance with directions. The court accepted this and closed the petition.
Cimingilla, 2025
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Con.Case(C).No.1471 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27050/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27050/2016(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.1:
M.A.JOSEPH AGED 73 YEARS S/O.ANTONY,MALIAKKAL HOUSE, ELAMKULAMDESOM,JANATHA ROAD, VYTILLA.P.O,COCHIN-682019.
BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1:
VINAYAN K.P (AGED 50 YEARS),S/O.P.V.NARAYANAN), REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR,URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,NOW HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE AS THE SECRETARY OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN,COCHIN-682011.
BY ADV. SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1471 OF 2020
2
IN WP(C). 27050/2016
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of March 2021
This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 21.5.2019 in W.P.(C) No.27050/2016 are not complied with.
“The judgment under contempt is dated 21.5.2019. Directions were issued to pay interest, after finding that the amounts due to the petitioner on account of sale deed executed in favour of the Corporation was paid with a delay of 27 months. Therefore, direction was issued to pay interest @ 12% from 19.7.2012. It was not paid. Accordingly, the contempt petition was filed before this Court on 28.9.2020. Sufficient opportunities were given, however, the amounts were not paid and finally this Court passed an order on 12.3.2021, directing the Secretary of the Corporation to file affidavit before this Court.
Even though on the previous posting, directions were issued to file affidavit or to be present before this Court. Today when the matter is taken up, an affidavit is filed by the Secretary of the Corporation, stating that amount calculated is Rs.5,44,086/- and it will be disbursed on or before 15.5.2021.
In my considered opinion, the affidavit submitted by the Secretary before this Court is not satisfactory and the time sought for cannot be sustained, in view of the peremptory directions contained in the judgment and subsequent opportunities given to the respondent to comply with the
Con.Case(C).No.1471 OF 2020
3
IN WP(C). 27050/2016
directions contained in the judgment.
Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to pay the amount quantified and as specified in the affidavit dated 15.3.2021 on or before 25.3.2021, if not paid, the Secretary shall be present before this Court on 26.3.2021.”
submitted that in accordance with the observations and directions contained as extracted above, the amount is received. Therefore, I do not find any reason to pursue the contempt petition any further and it is closed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
smv
Con.Case(C).No.1471 OF 2020
4
IN WP(C). 27050/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 21.05.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.27050/2016.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be punished for contempt after the respondent claimed repayment of the disputed amount.
Whether the alleged arrears towards delayed payment compensation have been cleared.
M.A. Joseph
Vinayan K.P
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
