IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1691 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27563/2007 Dated 16/10/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. M.J.BETTY, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.METRO SILKS & SAREES, METRO BAZAR, ANGAMALI P.O. 2. M.J.TOMY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.METRO TEXTILES, METRO BAZAR, ANGAMALI P.O. 3. M.J.TOMY, MANAGING PARTNER, METRO TRADERS, ANGAMALI P.O. 4. M.J.BETTY, MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALI P.O. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.T.THOMAS, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, P.B.NO.3667, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. V.I.MATHEW, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, P.B.NO.3667, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY SC SRI. ASP KURUP THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- CO(C).No.1691 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT This contempt petition has been filed on the allegation that, by again classifying the petitioner's account as NPA, the respondents have violated the directions issued by this court in Annexure-A judgment in WP(c).N.27563/07. A reading of the judgment shows that appreciating the facts as pleaded, this court held that the classification of the Petitioner's account as NPA was erroneous. After holding so, this court directed that a Superior Officer of the Bank should examine the case of the petitioner and consider whether the accounts are liable to be classified as NPA strictly following the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It was in compliance of the direction that, after considering the materials available, Annexure-B order was issued. 2. Even if there is a substance in the contention of the petitioner that Annexure-B is an illegal order, that is a matter CO(c).No.769/07 /2/ for the petitioner to agitate in a separate proceedings, which the petitioner has done in WP(c).No.16689/08. On the materials produced I am not persuaded to think that any deliberate violation of the judgment has been committed, warranting further proceedings. Contempt petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ CO(c).No.769/07 /2/