IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 303 of 2010(S)
1. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. MOHANAN, S/O.DASAN,AGED 48 YEARS,
Vs
1. INDUKALADHARAN, AGED AND FATHER'S NAME
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
-------------------------------
Contempt Case No. 303 of 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed the present ‘Contempt of Court
Case’ stating that the respondent has paid only scant regards to
Annexure 1 order passed by this Court on 22.2.2010 and coercive
proceedings have been taken by affixing Annexure 2 and 3 notices
at the residence of the petitioner, much after passing the interim
order of stay.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even
though the dates of Annexure 2 and 3 notices have been shown as
10.2.2010, the steps taken by the respondent causing the same to
be affixed at the building of the petitioners were after
communicating Anneuxre A1 interim order passed by this Court
which is very much contumacious and is liable to be proceed
against, under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.
The respondent has filed an affidavit explaining the actual facts and
figures, submitting that there is absolutely no attempt to disobey
the orders passed by this Court at any point of time. It is also
Contempt Case No. 303 of 2010 2
brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have not
complied with the condition imposed by this Court vide Annexure 1
interim order by depositing a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, so as to avail
the benefit of the interim order.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that it was very
much after filing of the Contempt of Court Case, that the condition
has been complied with by effecting the deposit on 6.3.2010. It is
also asserted that no further coercive proceedings are being
pursued in view of Annexure 1 interim order.
4. Taking note of the facts and figures, this Court finds that
there is failure on the part of the petitioners in satisfying the
condition imposed by this Court in Annexure 1 interim order and
that there is no contumacious act on the part of the respondent in
any manner. However, since the petitioners have complied with the
direction by effecting the deposit on 6.3.2010, the petitioners will
continue to avail the benefit of interim order.
The Contempt of Court Case is closed.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab
//True Copy//