IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 60 of 2010(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.34999/2009 DATED 4.12.2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- ABDU, S/O.POCKER, AGED 41 YEARS, THOTTUMPURAM HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOHZIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/4th RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- DEEPU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.HDFC BANK, 5TH FLOOR, M SONS ARCADE, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH SRI.T.RAJESH THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.60 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein who is the branch manager of the HDFC Bank at Cherooty Road in Kozhikode has wilfully violated the directions issued by this Court in Annexure III order dated 4th December, 2009 in W.P. (C) No.34999 of 2009 by forcibly repossessing the petitioner's vehicle. 2. The respondent has entered appearance and has filed a counter affidavit dated 9th February, 2010 and an additional counter affidavit dated 9th July, 2010. The respondent has also filed a statement dated 9.7.2010 setting out the amount due from the petitioner in respect of the four loans availed by him to purchase commercial vehicles. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating his earlier contentions. 3. We heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. Cont. Case (C) No.60 of 2010 - 2 - We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. We also questioned the respondent who is present in person. The respondent has in paragraph 3 of the additional counter affidavit dated 9th July, 2010 stated that the vehicle was found abandoned at Palayamcotta by Sri.Pal Pandian of Thirunelveli who was working with the bank and the said person in turn conveyed the information to Sri.Willson, their legal Manager at Madurai, who instructed Sri.Pal Pandian to proceed to the site after informing the police. It is also stated that the vehicle was taken into possession by Sri.Pal Pandian after informing the local police. The pleadings also disclose that the petitioner is an admitted defaulter and that more than Rs.30 lakhs is presently due from him towards repayment of the loans availed by him to purchase commercial vehicles. From the pleadings and the materials on record, we are satisfied that the respondent has not taken forcible possession of the vehicle from the petitioner. Cont. Case (C) No.60 of 2010 - 3 - In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no further orders are called for in this contempt case. It is accordingly closed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns