Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
K.Sivarama Pillai vs C.V.George on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 533 of 2009(S)


1. K.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PONMALIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.V.GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAJEEV KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                               S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ==================

                   Contempt Case (C).No. 533 of 2009

                       ==================

              Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010

                                J U D G M E N T

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of non-

compliance with Annexure A1 judgment, which was passed as early as

on 23.9.2005. More than five years have passed by after the

judgment. I passed an order on 3.11.2010 as follows;

“Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the
respondents are taking steps to give the benefits of Annexure A1
judgment to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General seeks
three weeks’ time. In any event, Annexure A1 judgment is dated
23.9.2005. Five years are too long period for implementing a
judgment. Only because the learned Assistant Solicitor General assures
this Court that the judgment would be complied with within three
weeks, I adjourn this case by three weeks.

Post on 29.11.2010. If Annexure A1 judgment is not fully
complied with by then, the respondents shall appear in person on that
day.”

The same itself was passed after issuing notice on 19.6.2009. Today,

the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that orders have been

complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been unreasonably harassed by the respondents for

getting his due benefits, right for which has been upheld by this Court.

It is also pointed out that an appeal and a review petition filed by the

respondents in the writ petition were also dismissed. In the above

circumstances, while closing the contempt case, I am inclined to award

costs to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents shall personally

c.c.c.533/09 2

pay costs of ` 5,000/- to the petitioner, within one month. The same

shall not be debited to the exchequer and shall be recovered from the

respondents personally.

Sd/-

sdk+                                            S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                             P.A. to Judge


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.121 seconds.