IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 692 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.13900/2002 Dated 20/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.FRANCIS AGED 68 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI T.P.MATHAI, RETIRED MANAGER OF MMTC LIMITED, THOTTUMKAL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., 683 106, ALUVA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.SUBASH BATRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF (NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, MMTC LIMITED, CORE-1, SCOPE COMPLEX 7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.D.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON 24.08.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 692 of 2009 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT By Annexure I judgment this court considered the claim of the petitioner herein for payment of Annuity Pension as per the MMTC Employees' Contributory Superannuation - cum - Family Annuity Scheme. The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 therein were directed to issue appropriate communication to the petitioner showing the balance payable by them under the scheme, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The amount already paid will be adjusted towards the same. It was also directed that the balance amount due to the petitioner will be paid as a one time measure rather than paying it by monthly contributions, along with interest at 5% per annum. Appropriate payments were directed to be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. By Annexure II lawyer notice dated 7.3.2009 the petitioner requested the respondent to effect payments towards the amount due. Annexure III is the reply given by the respondent stating that the total dues along with interest, will be Rs.91,166/- which has already been paid to the coc 692/2009 2 petitioner. It was made clear that no other amount is due to the petitioner. Annexure IV is the further notice issued by the petitioner disputing the stand taken in Annexure III. This was again replied by Annexure V by the respondent by reiterating their stand in Annexure III. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed the above Contempt of Court Case. 2. The respondent has filed an affidavit and the petitioner has filed a reply also. 3. Heard Shri M.N. Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.P. Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. It is strongly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexures III and V will not satisfy the claim raised by the petitioner. They do not answer the points raised by him also. The amount paid during the pendency of the writ petition will be less than what is actually due. It is pointed out, by relying upon the findings in the judgment, that the amounts which have been declared to be payable to the petitioner, have not been paid so far. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this court in C.K.N. Nair v. K.M. Chandy (1976 KLT 879) and State of Kerala and others v. Krishna Kumar T.G. and others (2009 (3) KHC 137) to contend that the declaration made in the judgment is liable to be obeyed and any disobeyance will amount to civil contempt. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that going by para 14 of the coc 692/2009 3 judgment, certain directions have been issued and finally it was ordered that the writ petition is allowed as above. It is therefore submitted that the directions contained in para 14 have been fully satisfied by the respondent. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the said directions contained in the judgment also. 6. The pleadings of the petitioner are elaborate. In fact, all these are parts of the pleas raised in the writ petition which were considered by this court. This court found that the petitioner will be entitled for similar benefits as granted in the judgment in W.A.Nos.1795/06, 1803/06 and 1806/06. The objection that was taken by the respondents, was also overruled. It was also held that the payments made during the pendency of the writ petition, have to be adjusted and the same will be only towards the balance amount due to him. It was observed that so far the same has not been disclosed at all. It is accordingly a direction was issued to respondents 1 to 3 to issue an appropriate communication to the petitioner showing the balance payable by them under the Scheme and such amount was directed to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 7. It is thus clear that this court has not quantified the amount that is payable to the petitioner. Now, going by the stand taken by the respondent, the calculations contained in Annexures III and V will disclose their liability and as the liability has already been cleared by the payment of coc 692/2009 4 Rs.91,166/-, no further amount is due. 8. Thus, the only question herein is whether there is any willful disobedience of the judgment of this court. The petitioner disputes the correctness of the statement of accounts given in Annexures III and V. Evidently, the same requires an adjudication in appropriate proceedings. Hence, in these proceedings, the same cannot be a subject matter of determination. Already, the entitlement of the petitioner for the claim raised has been found in his favour in this writ petition. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to challenge Annexures III and V in appropriate proceedings including proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, I find no scope for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent. The same is closed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings as observed above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/