IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 32 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14459/2009 Dated 08/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CAPTAIN JAMES JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE CAPTAIN.M.JOSEPH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM GOLDEN MARINE PVT.LTD., 3RD FLOOR, MADUKKANNIL PCT CHAMBERS, KANJIKKUZHI JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686004. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. T.G.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER, C & I DIVISION, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. SADASIVAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER (SARC), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY ADV.SRI.K.S. DILIP, SC FOR SBI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 32 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court stating that the order passed by this Court on 8th June, 2009 has been violated by the respondents by taking over the physical possession of the residential building, which in fact was intercepted by this Court while permitting the bank to proceed with the sale scheduled on 18.06.2009, making it clear that, physical possession could be taken only subject to further orders to be obtained from this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of satisfaction of substantial amount towards the liability by the petitioner, the same has been simply given a go-bye and the Bank filed a petition before concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking over the physical possession of the property/building, getting an Advocate Commissioner appointed; finally leading to taking over the possession of the property. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the course and events were resulted because of the inadvertent mistake on the part of the learned counsel in COC (C) No. 32 of 2011 : 2 : communicating the outcome of the order to the authorities of the Bank, especially when a review petition filed against the interim order. The learned counsel further submits that the writ petition is still pending consideration. What was the actual circumstance, which made the respondents to proceed with further steps is not discernible from the materials on record. However, since the learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was because of the inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel, this Court finds that, the allegation of contempt now raised against the respondents/officers of the Bank is not liable to be proceeded with, as there is no contumacious act on their part. It is open for the petitioner to move the concerned Court, where the writ petition is stated as pending, for appropriate relief with regard to the merits involved. In the said circumstances, no further orders are necessary. The Contempt of Court case is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties as aforesaid, as to the merits involved. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd