IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 341 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.36729/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD,, P.B.NO.1727, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.M.REGHUNATHAN, S/O.LATE ACHUTHA MARAR, AGED 63, V/128, OLD DESOM ROAD, THOTTACKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.CHOKKALINGAM, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, POST BAG NO.2, THRISSUR-682 020. 2. SRI.CHERIAN KURIAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE(ERNAKULAM), EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MALU'S COMPLEX, ST.FRANCIS' CHURCH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 3. SRI.MATHEWS MATHEW, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, POST BAG NO.2, THRISSUR-682 020. BY ADV. SMT. T.D. RAJALAKSHMY, S.C. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 341 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A1 interim order of this Court. By the interim order, I directed the respondents to stop further proceedings in Exts. P12 and P15 demand notice and prohibition order in the writ petition and to return all the amounts already realised from the petitioner-Corporation as per Ext. P12 demand notice and as per Ext. P17 communication from the Bank, pending further orders in the writ petition. 2. On 15.3.2011, I passed the following order: “The learned standing counsel for the ESI Corporation hands over a cheque for Rs. 7,16,010/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner, which, according to the ESI Corporation, is the amount collected in violation of Annexure A1 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the amount has been received, in view of the delay, appropriate compensation should be given to the petitioner. Although I am not quite happy with the conduct of the respondents, taking a lenient view, I close the contempt case since the order has been complied with. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.