Petitioner challenged compliance of specific directions in W.P.C. No. 10659/2011 concerning lease payments and interest. The Court held no contempt occurred as the High Court did not specify the manner of consideration for the interest representation. The petition is closed.
Contempt petition closed with liberty to challenge interest statement.
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 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 10659/2011 DATED 31-07-2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CONTEMPT PETITIONER/PETITIONER
S.S. JAYARAJ S/O.CHITHARANNIYA, AGED 62 YEARS, M/S. ZEEMA RUBBER PRODUCTS, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.V.GEORGE LINDA GEORGE JIMMY GEORGE
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT
M.ASHRAF S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,IDUKKI DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, (SERVICE), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO. IND(1) 10, THODUPUZHA NOW AT CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI-685602.
SRI.SAJUSH PAUL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of March 2021
This contempt petition is filed complaining
that the directives contained in the judgment dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.10659/2011 is not complied with.
payments due to the Idukki District Mini Industrial
Estate represented by its managing director in regard to a lease arrangement. The directions contained in the judgment, after taking note of the
rival submissions of the parties are as follows:-
“4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, I think it is only appropriate that the petitioner is permitted to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,554.36/within a time frame, and allow him to make a request to the Government to reduce the rate of interest. Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,554.36/- towards the actual principal amount. However, the said direction will not stand in the way of the respondents considering the claims raised by the petitioner that, petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.97,519/- and also payments made by the petitioner in accordance with the interim order passed by this
3
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
Court on 07.04.2011, and if found favour with, necessary adjustments shall be made in respect of the principal amount to be paid by the petitioner. Anyhow, a statement of account shall be provided to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the petitioner shall pay the said principal amount to the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of the statement of account and shall make a representation to the respondents seeking reduction of the interest rate and the same shall be considered, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a finality shall be attained, within a further period of two months.”
directions issued to consider a representation received from the petitioner in the matter of
payment of interest was considered and Annexure A4
statement and a consequential demand was issued as
to the amount that is due to the respondents from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, huge amount of Rs.4,94,299/- is alleged to be remaining due from the petitioner, which cannot be sustained under law.
Bar and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
4
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
judgment as extracted above would makes it clear
that, it was a simple direction directing the respondents to receive a representation from the petitioner and consider the matter with respect to
interest due from the petitioner to the
respondents. I have also not directed the manner in which the representation is to be considered. When viewed the issue in that manner, it is clear that, in accordance with the directions representation was received and a statement was issued showing the balance interest remaining due. Therefore it cannot
be said that, there was any deliberate attempt or contumacious act on the part of the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court.
In that view of the matter, this Court cannot
take up the responsibility of adjudicating the actual interest due in a contempt proceeding and
the petitioner has to necessarily challenge the
same before an appropriate and competent forum.
5
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
Therefore the contempt petition is closed, finding that there is no contempt, however the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the statement and the consequential demand raised therein
are left open.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE
hmh
6
Con.Case(C).No.831 OF 2018(S) IN WP(C). 10659/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE AI TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 07.04.2011 IN WPC NO.10659/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2017IN WPC NO.10659/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE AV TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT OF RS.50,555/- DATED 15.09.2017 PAID BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE AVI TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there was contempt of the directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 10659/2011 regarding payment and interest calculation.
S.S. Jayaraj
M. Ashraf
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
