IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 429 of 2010(S)
1. C.SAJEEV, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.PRIYA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 15th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Both these contempt matters are connected with very same
cause of action, in two separate writ petitions, one filed by the
respondent/contemnor (W.P (C) 13744 of 2007) and the other, filed by the
State (W.P (C). 24482 of 2004)
2. The sale of the property, in the course or realization of the
amounts due to the Bank concerned, was sought to be set aside in the Writ
Petition filed by the respondent/contemnor on some or other grounds, while
some what similar prayer was raised from the part of the Government in
the other Writ Petition seeking to set aside the sale contending that, the
State was having ‘priority right’, than the rights and interest of the
concerned Bank, at whose instance the sale was effected. After detailed
hearing, the sale was set aside by this Court, passing a common verdict in
both the Writ Petitions on 13.07.2009, making specific observations with
regard to the course and events to be pursued, as agreed. The
undertaking and consensus arrived in between the respondent/contemnor
and the successful bidder of the property to satisfy a sum of Rs.1 Crore to
the latter was recorded. Similarly, the undertaking of the
COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010
2
contemnor/respondent that the entire liability to the Bank would be cleared,
besides the liability to be satisfied to the State, was also recorded. It was
further made clear that, till the liability to the successful bidder is cleared as
aforesaid, it will remain as the first charge, over the property in question.
3. The Contempt of Court Case number 603 of 2010 has been filed
by the bidder, stating that, all the three cheques issued by the
respondent/contemnor, in furtherance of the undertaking, were
dishonoured, for want of sufficient funds and that the act of the concerned
party clearly amounts to contempt of court, which is liable to be proceeded
under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Similarly, the contention in the other case, i.e. COC 429 of 2010
filed from the part of the State, is that, the undertaking given by
respondent/contemnor who had filed W.P. (C) 13744 of 2007, that the
liability to the State would be cleared, has not been honoured and hence is
liable to be proceeded against the contemnor under the relevant provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. The contemnor has filed separate counter affidavits in both the
contempt matters.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in spite of the earnest
efforts of the respondent/contemnor, the proceedings to comply with the
directions in the verdict passed by this Court could not be completed as
COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010
3
intended, because of the subsequent developments. It is stated in the
counter affidavit filed in COC 429 of 2010 that, the respondent/contemnor,
as a measure of bonafides had cleared a portion of the liability, particularly
in respect of the period during which the estate was in her custody. The
contemnor has produced copies of the relevant records. In the
meanwhile, the State published a notification bearing No. EFL 10-750/2009
dated 25th January, 2010 in the Government of Kerala Gazette dated 16th
February, 2010, taking over the entire estate under the relevant provisions
of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecology Fragile Lands)
Act, 2003 and it is without any regard to the same that the above contempt
matter was filed at the instance of the State. The respondent/contemnor
has also contended in the counter affidavit filed in the connected COC 603
of 2010 that, the successful bidder has already proceeded against the
respondent/contemnor in respect of the dishonour of concerned cheques,
by filing appropriate proceedings in the concerned Magistrate’s Court,
alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
as borne by Annexures R1(a) to R(c). It is also stated that, by virtue of the
specific observations made by this Court in the judgment that, till the
liability to the successful bidder is cleared, it will remain as the ‘first charge’
over the property and in view of the subsequent developments, the
concerned party is at liberty to proceed against the property as well in
COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010
4
accordance with law.
7. Taking note of the subsequent turn of events after passing the
verdict as aforesaid, the entire property in respect of which the sale was
effected earlier, has been taken over by the Government by virtue the
above mentioned notification, this Court finds that, there is no wilful
disobedience on the part of the respondent/contemnor, so as to constitute
a contumacious act and to proceed against the respondent, invoking the
relevant provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the said
circumstances, no further proceedings are required to be pursued. Both the
contempt matters are closed accordingly. It is made clear that, the
concerned parties are at liberty to pursue and proceed with appropriate
steps, so as to workout their remedies in accordance with law.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd