IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1655 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.23433/2008 Dated 13/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.KARUNA STEELS & KAIWALYA BUILDING MATERIALS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.A.R.RAJEEV, S/O.DR.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 46, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.R.RAJEEV, S/O.DR.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 ,GURUVARUL, ROSE NAGAR, SREEKARIYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. 3. C.BRINDA, W/O.A.R.RAJEEV, AGED 35, GURUVARUL, ROSE NAGAR,, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- J.A.P.CHELLAYA, CHIEF MANAGER,ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, PUBJAB NATINAL BANK, REGINAL OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Court (C) No. 1655 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance with the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. The allegation is that the petitioners had already paid the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs as directed in Annexure A1 judgment, despite which the respondent is insisting on payment of interest also, which has not been directed to be paid as per the judgment. 2. I do not think that the petitioners' allegation is correct. By the judgment, I had directed the Bank to permit the petitioners to pay the balance amount out of the OTS amount sanctioned, after adjusting the amount deposited in the third party accounts to the loan account. But, I had specifically directed that the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest on all the delayed payments out of the OTS amount as also the charges and costs incurred by the Bank for the recovery proceedings which only the respondent is seeking payment of. Therefore, there is no merit in the contempt case and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/