Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.KESAVAN,S/O.VELUMBAN,AGED 55 YEARS versus D.UDAYAKUMARIAMMA,W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THIS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.KESAVAN,S/O.VELUMBAN,AGED 55 YEARS v. D.UDAYAKUMARIAMMA,W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THIS - Con Case(C) No. 687 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 11950 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 687 of 2007(S)

1. V.KESAVAN,S/O.VELUMBAN,AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. D.UDAYAKUMARIAMMA,W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THIS
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

C.O.C No.687 of 2007 S

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court alleging violation of the direction of this court in Annexure IV order. It is common case that during the pendency of the contempt application, the direction of this court has been complied with. On reporting the fact before this court, this court passed the following order:

"The respondent appeared through counsel. Now, it is common case that the respondent has paid the amount due to the petitioner. But, there is a delay of one month in paying it. The petitioner submits, he has suffered substantial loss as a result of it. He has to pay additional interest for one more month. I propose to pass an order, directing the respondent to pay the said amount to the petitioner by way of costs. The respondent may show cause why such an order should not be passed. Post after two weeks."

2. The respondent has filed an affidavit, as directed by this court, explaining the circumstances under which the delay was occasioned. C.O.C No.687 of 2007

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. The respondent points out that petition for extension of time was filed by the respondent on 8.5.2007. When it came up before the vacation bench, it was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter, this contempt application was filed on 17.5.2007, which came up for admission on 29.5.2007. The amounts due to the petitioner were released on 24.5.2007. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court, it may not be proper to issue further directions in the contempt application. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for being compensated for the delay in payment of the amount is kept open, which can be decided in the writ petition, after hearing both sides. It is not in dispute that there is some delay in complying with the direction of this court. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get costs, which is fixed as Rs.1,000/-, which shall be C.O.C No.687 of 2007 paid by the Corporation to the petitioner within one month from today. Contempt petition is accordingly closed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.