Disposed

Mini.I.P v. Joby .a.J

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022Con.Case(C)/447/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the bank alleged non-compliance with court directions regarding installment payments due from a producer company. The court held that since substantial payments were made and a suit was pending under a specific Act, there was no wilful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings. The case was closed without further action.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed. No further proceedings against the respondents for contempt are to be initiated.

Mini.I.P Vs Joby .a.J — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

C.O.© No. 447/2018

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

CON.CASE(C) NO. 447 OF 2018

¶8

JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2017 IN WPC 26203/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 IN I.A.NO. 18165 OF 2017 IN W.P.© NO. 26203 OF

¶9

2017

¶10

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶11

MINI.I.P W/O. RAGHUNANDANAN,AGED 47 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTORIN-CHARGE,

¶12

ADAT FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 551. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

1 JOBY A.J., AGED 44 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,THRISSUR PADDY FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.,T.B. ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR - 21.

¶15

2 ADDL R2 IMPLEADED:

¶16

M.V.RAJENDRAN

¶17

S/O VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT MANAKKULANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO PUZHAKKAL, THIRISSUR -680 553.

¶18

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THRISSUR PADDY FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LTD, T.B ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-21.

¶19

[ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/10/2021 IN IA/1/2021 IN COC 447/2018.] BY ADVS. SRI. ARUN CHANDRAN SRI. C.P.SABARI SRI. D.SOMASUNDARAM(K/274/1976)

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

C.O.© No. 447/2018 : 2 :

¶22

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶23

--------------------------------------------------------C.O.© No. 447 of 2018 in I.A. No. 18165/2017 in W.P.(C). No. 26203 of 2017 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2022.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This Contempt Petition is filed by the first respondent in W.P. (C) No. 26203 of 2017 alleging that the directions contained in the judgment dated 23.08.2017 is not complied with by the respondent/writ petitioner, despite the extension of time granted by this Court as per Annexure III order dated 15.11.2017 in I.A.No. 18165 of 2017 in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶26

The writ petition was disposed of by this Court recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner that it is agreeable to repay the amount in six equated monthly instalments and consequent to which the directions were issued to repay the amount accordingly, starting from 20.09.2017 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months; with a further rider that if any of the directions are violated, the contempt petitioner Bank will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and recover the amount in lump.

¶27

The payment of the second instalment was extended as per Annexure III order dated 15.11.2017 specified above. The

¶28

C.O.© No. 447/2018 : 3 :

¶29

allegation made in the contempt petition by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in the writ petition is that, the respondent has paid only an amount of Rs.62,50,000/- by 19.10.2017 and thereby, violated the directions issued in the impugned judgment.

¶30

Anyhow, during the pendency of the contempt petition, payments were being effected, and as of now, an amount of Rs.7,29,95,893/- is paid by the respondent company to the contempt petitioner. It is also submitted that altogether, an amount of Rs.12,31,81,238/- was paid by the respondent. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioner Bank submitted that the contempt petitioner has filed a suit before the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘Act, 1969’ for short).

¶31

The successive officers of the Thrissur Paddy Farmers Producer Company Ltd., the respondent herein, has filed affidavits basically stating that the amounts in its entirety could not be paid, since the company is in financial difficulties and whenever there is a surplus amount, the same will be paid to the petitioner.

¶32

However, the learned counsel appearing for contempt petitioner submitted that the said company has got sufficient financial source to pay off the entire dues.

¶33

C.O.© No. 447/2018

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.C. Sasidharan and Sri. Anil Kumar, and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. D. Somasundaram, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶36

The respondents in the contempt petition are officers of the Thrissur Paddy Farmers Producer Company Limited. Evidently, huge amounts were due from the said company to the Adat Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.—contempt petitioner/respondent in the writ petition, which, at one point of time, was managed by the administrative committee appointed under the Act, 1969.

¶37

Anyhow, substantial payments as specified above are made by the respondent company, and the contempt petitioner bank has filed a suit before the Arbitrator in contemplation of Section 69 of the Act, 1969. Specific directions were issued to the respondent company in the contempt petition to pay the amount in six installments; however, in case of violation of any of the instalments, the contempt petitioner was given the liberty to recover the amount in accordance with law.

¶38

As per Section 2(b), the expression ‘civil contempt’ is defined to mean ‘a wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction etc. or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Since payments were being made, it

¶39

¶40

shows the earnest efforts made by the respondent company to pay the amount. Therefore, I do not think, there is any wilful disobedience or contumacious act on the part of the respondent officers in discharging the liabilities of the company so as to proceed under the contempt of courts act.

¶41

Anyhow, a suit for recovery of amounts is pending consideration as per the provisions of the Act, 1969. Taking into account the above aspects, I do not think, the contempt petition is to be proceeded further. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the parties to take up all contentions in the pending proceedings before the Arbitrator, including the payments made.

¶42

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv/dcs

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 447/2018

¶47

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶48

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2017 IN W.P.© NO. 26203 OF 2017. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME DATED 06.11.2017. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 IN I.A.NO. 18165/2017 IN W.P.© NO. 26203/2017. RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:

¶49

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE COMPANY TO THE BANK ON 16.02.2018. ANNEXURE R1(a) AFFIDAVIT OF MANAGING PARTNER OF AISWARIA MODERN RICE MILL, KALADY DATED 04.03.2019. ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 23.03.2019. ANNEXURE R1(b) DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWING THE REMITTANCE BY THE COMPANY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE I JUDGMENT.

¶50

True Copy

¶51

PS To Judge.

¶52

Mini.I.P v. Joby .a.J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini.I.P v. Joby .a.J

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

A.D.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

The Little Sisters of St. Theresa of Lisieux Vs the District Collector, Kannur

Subin Jacob, Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Dennis Edassery Vs the Secretary, Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat

Aniyan Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Francis Vs Pala Municipality

T.Ayyappan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation