IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 429 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24482/2004 DATED 13/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.SAJEEVE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.S.CHELLAPPAN, THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- R. PRIYA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRIYA RUBBER ESTATES AND PLANTATIONS (P) LTD., PLOT NO.1662, ANNA NAGAR, WEST CHENNAI-40, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUTHOPPIL, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRIAJI.K.ANTONY. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010,ALONG WITH COC NO. 603 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Both these contempt matters are connected with very same cause of action, in two separate writ petitions, one filed by the respondent/contemnor (W.P (C) 13744 of 2007) and the other, filed by the State (W.P (C). 24482 of 2004) 2. The sale of the property, in the course or realization of the amounts due to the Bank concerned, was sought to be set aside in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent/contemnor on some or other grounds, while some what similar prayer was raised from the part of the Government in the other Writ Petition seeking to set aside the sale contending that, the State was having 'priority right', than the rights and interest of the concerned Bank, at whose instance the sale was effected. After detailed hearing, the sale was set aside by this Court, passing a common verdict in both the Writ Petitions on 13.07.2009, making specific observations with regard to the course and events to be pursued, as agreed. The undertaking and consensus arrived in between the respondent/contemnor and the successful bidder of the property to satisfy a sum of Rs.1 Crore to the latter was recorded. Similarly, the undertaking of the COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010 2 contemnor/respondent that the entire liability to the Bank would be cleared, besides the liability to be satisfied to the State, was also recorded. It was further made clear that, till the liability to the successful bidder is cleared as aforesaid, it will remain as the first charge, over the property in question. 3. The Contempt of Court Case number 603 of 2010 has been filed by the bidder, stating that, all the three cheques issued by the respondent/contemnor, in furtherance of the undertaking, were dishonoured, for want of sufficient funds and that the act of the concerned party clearly amounts to contempt of court, which is liable to be proceeded under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. Similarly, the contention in the other case, i.e. COC 429 of 2010 filed from the part of the State, is that, the undertaking given by respondent/contemnor who had filed W.P. (C) 13744 of 2007, that the liability to the State would be cleared, has not been honoured and hence is liable to be proceeded against the contemnor under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. The contemnor has filed separate counter affidavits in both the contempt matters. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in spite of the earnest efforts of the respondent/contemnor, the proceedings to comply with the directions in the verdict passed by this Court could not be completed as COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010 3 intended, because of the subsequent developments. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in COC 429 of 2010 that, the respondent/contemnor, as a measure of bonafides had cleared a portion of the liability, particularly in respect of the period during which the estate was in her custody. The contemnor has produced copies of the relevant records. In the meanwhile, the State published a notification bearing No. EFL 10-750/2009 dated 25th January, 2010 in the Government of Kerala Gazette dated 16th February, 2010, taking over the entire estate under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecology Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 and it is without any regard to the same that the above contempt matter was filed at the instance of the State. The respondent/contemnor has also contended in the counter affidavit filed in the connected COC 603 of 2010 that, the successful bidder has already proceeded against the respondent/contemnor in respect of the dishonour of concerned cheques, by filing appropriate proceedings in the concerned Magistrate's Court, alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as borne by Annexures R1(a) to R(c). It is also stated that, by virtue of the specific observations made by this Court in the judgment that, till the liability to the successful bidder is cleared, it will remain as the 'first charge' over the property and in view of the subsequent developments, the concerned party is at liberty to proceed against the property as well in COC Nos. 429 & 603 of 2010 4 accordance with law. 7. Taking note of the subsequent turn of events after passing the verdict as aforesaid, the entire property in respect of which the sale was effected earlier, has been taken over by the Government by virtue the above mentioned notification, this Court finds that, there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent/contemnor, so as to constitute a contumacious act and to proceed against the respondent, invoking the relevant provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the said circumstances, no further proceedings are required to be pursued. Both the contempt matters are closed accordingly. It is made clear that, the concerned parties are at liberty to pursue and proceed with appropriate steps, so as to workout their remedies in accordance with law. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd