Vinod Kumar.K.C vs T.M.Kesavan on 8 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11912 of 2009(H)



1. VINOD KUMAR.K.C.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. T.M.KESAVAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :08/04/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 W.P.C. NO. 11912 OF 2009
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
         Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009.

                       J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare that

the petitioner is entitled to remit the compensation as per

Ext.P1 judgment before the Court below and to issue a writ

of mandamus commanding the Court below to accept the

money from the petitioner in view of the dictum laid by the

Hon’ble Court in the judgment reported in Girish v.

Muthoot Capital Service (2007 (1) KLT 16). With the

assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I had

perused the said decision. It was a case where in an 138

case there was conviction and sentence and a revision was

preferred before the revisional Court. Then rightly conceded

by the learned counsel that there are no merits in the

revision a question arose to the effect since a time is

stipulated for payment of fine and when it is tendered after

due date there will be difficulty. This Court held that the said

W.P.C 11912 OF 2009
-:2:-

apprehension appears to be totally unfounded and had laid

down the dictum in such cases to be followed.

2. So far as this case is concerned in spite of the

order passed by this Court as early as in 2005 till today the

petitioner did not go anywhere near the Court and has now

come with a prayer to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this

Court to give a mandate to the trial court to accept the

amount. The judgment rendered by this Court is binding on

all the subordinate Courts and when there is apprehension in

the mind of the petitioner he is at liberty to move that Court

with a petition citing the decision which he relies upon and

that Court is bound to follow the principles laid down in that

decision. I am not going into any further details. The

petitioner may move the Court if he chooses to do so and the

trial court shall consider the application in the light of the

enunciated principles of law laid down by this Court as well

as of the Apex Court.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-