IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 803 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1218/2007 Dated 09/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI S/O.SHRI M.KUMARASWAMY PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA BRANCH NO.2, ERNAKULAM, ELIAS CHAMBERS BANERJEE ROAD, KOCHI-18 BY ADV. MR. O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MS. K.RADHAMANI AMMA MR. K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) RESPONDENT: --------------- S.CHANDRASEKAR, S/O.SRI,SUNDARAN AGED 57 YEARS, SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "JEEVAN PRAKASH" PB NO.1133, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 011. BY ADV. MR. S.EASWARAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 803 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. As per the judgment dated 09.07.2009 in W.A. 1218 of 2007, the respondents were directed to fix the benefit payable to the petitioner and to have it disbursed as specified therein. The contention of the petitioner is that, since the respondent has not given effect to the said verdict till date, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court again by filing the present contempt matter. 2. The respondent has filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations and also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R1 (a) to R1(d). The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the due amount of Rs.62,252/- payable to the petitioner has already been disbursed, as borne by Ext. R1(d). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, much higher amount is due to the petitioner. The learned counsel however submits that, the matter could be closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to dispute the correctness of the amount by way of appropriate proceedings. COC No. 803 of 2010 : 2 : 4. In the above circumstances, we do not find it necessary to proceed with the contempt matter. Accordingly, the same is closed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner as above. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd