IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1229 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1835/2010 Dated 29/10/2010 ) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ CHACKO V.JOSEPH, S/O.V.C.JOSEPH, AGED 42, RESIDING AT VADAKKEMATTATHIL, PUTHUPPDI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO.1/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SUSIE B.VARGHESE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, P.K.COMPLEX, R.C.ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 1229 of 2011 IN W.A.No.1835 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st December, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. The present contempt proceedings is filed complaining disobedience of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court . By order dated 29.10.2010, the following direction was given: “In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify the judgment under appeal directing the respondents to retain only an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and release the balance amount subject to the condition that appellant furnishes security either by way of producing bank guarantee or immovable property security to the satisfaction of the third respondent for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs)”. 2. It is not in dispute that the complainant herein approached the respondent Department with a bank guarantee offered from the Calicut Town Service Co-operative Bank and the CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 1229 of 2011 2 same came to be refused by the Department on the ground they accept only bank guarantee from a nationalised bank. Apparently, the direction of the Division Bench is that the bank guarantee or immovable property security to be offered by the complainant must satisfy the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, if the Department insists on a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank, we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the complainant that there is disobedience to the direction of this Court by the department. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion, nothing remains for further consideration in this proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk