High Court Kerala High Court

Priya K.S. vs Sri.Jose Abraham on 18 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Priya K.S. vs Sri.Jose Abraham on 18 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1049 of 2010(S)


1. PRIYA K.S., AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SMT.SHERLY K.GEORGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :18/08/2010

 O R D E R
                       P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                    -------------------------------

               Cont. Case (C) No.1049 of 2010

                    -------------------------------

           Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

This contempt case is filed alleging that respondents

who are the Managing Director and the Diary Manager of the

Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. have

violated Annexure-I judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32724

of 2009. By the said judgment, the first relief prayed for in the

writ petition, viz., a direction to the respondents in the writ

petition to comply with the tender conditions in Ext.P1 tender

notice and to execute an agreement incorporating the terms and

conditions, was declined. The second prayer was for a direction

to the respondents to release the amount payable for the

previous year during which also the petitioner was the successful

taxi operator. As regards the said relief, learned standing

counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that any money

remaining unpaid will be paid, after the accounts are settled

expeditiously and in any event within two weeks. The petitioner

has no case that the said undertaking has not been complied

Cont.Case (C) No.1049 of 2010

2

with. The grievance put forward is that the terms and

conditions of the agreement entered into by the petitioner for

the year 2009-10 have not been complied with. In my opinion,

if the respondents are not adhering to the terms and conditions

entered into by the petitioner with the respondents, the

petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere. In such circumstances, I find

no ground to entertain the contempt case. It is accordingly

dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

nj.