IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 179 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29813/2009 Dated 21/10/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------ JAYANARAYANAN. K., S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 47, THEKKINIYAKATH HOUSE, CHERAMKUTH, MANHAPATTA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR. K.S.MADHUSOODANAN MR. T.V. JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI MR. THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY MR. M.M.VINOD KUMAR MS. K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------- M.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.MOYINKUTTY MASTER, AGED 57, REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD., KOZHIKODE. ADV.MR. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ Cont. Case(C).No.179 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R -------------- 1. Through Annexure-I order of this court stay was granted against confirmation of sale by accepting bid if any received in the auction conducted on 22.10.2009, for a period of one month, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.75,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order. Admittedly the petitioner failed to remit the amount stipulated. As a consequence the respondent Bank conducted sale of the secured assets on 6.11.2009. Subsequently, by virtue of Annexure-II order this court had extended the time stipulated for payment of Rs.75,000/- upto 4.12.2009. But Annexure-II order was issued only on 30.11.2009. Therefore it is evident that the sale was conducted on a date on which the interim stay was not in force, because of non compliance of the conditions stipulated therein. 2. Further, it is pointed out that the writ petition itself was disposed of subsequently, directing the petitioner COC.179/10 -2- to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in appeal. In order to facilitate the petitioner to obtain interim orders from that Tribunal, status quo with respect to possession was directed to be maintained for a period of one month. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no ground established warranting action under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb