IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1116 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3188/2010 Dated 15/03/2010 ) PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- 1. C.M.NOORUDEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, 4/C HARBOUR CRUST, KURISUPALLY ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-682015. 2. HYDER, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 42 YEARS, CHETTIKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. SHABEENA, W/O.HYDER, AGED 35 YEARS, CHETTIKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SRI.M.S.IYER, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. 2. SRI.MEHAN MEHTA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682035. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP, SC. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1116 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 3188 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd October, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Contempt case originates from the cause of action, projected in W.P.(C) No. 3188 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 15.03.2010. 2. When the Writ Petition was considered, it was brought to the notice of this Court that as on 05.03.2010, the total outstanding liability was around Rs. 17,90,065/- and that the Bank had decided to extend concession to the tune of Rs.1,04,688/- confining the claim to Rs.16,85,377/-, on condition that the said amount was satisfied within 10 days. 3. Taking note of the stringency of the condition made, the petitioners decided to forego the said concession and sought for some breathing time to clear the liability by way of reasonable installments. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to clear the entire outstanding liability by depositing a sum of Rs. five lakhs on or before 31.03.2010 as assured by the petitioners and to satisfy the entire balance amount by way of 'three' equal CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1116 OF 2010 2 monthly installments, the first of which was to be effected on or before 30.04.2010 and the last one on or before 30.06.2010. The petitioners sought for extension of time by filing I.A.No. 6557 of 2010, whereby the time to clear the second installment was modified as on or before 30.06.2010 and the third installment on or before 30.07.2010. It is the case of the petitioners that, pursuant to the above verdict/order, the entire outstanding liability of Rs.17,90,065/- was cleared and in spite of submitting Annexure-E representation seeking to return the title deeds, it was never acceded to, which made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this Contempt of Court case. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions. It is stated that non-return of title deeds is only because of the fact that the petitioners have not cleared the 'entire liability' under the loan transaction. It is also stated that the total liability is not the amount as put forth from the part of the petitioners, simultaneously adding that the figure of Rs.17,90,065/- as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the judgment was only a 'tentative CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1116 OF 2010 3 figure', though the actual liability, if cleared availing the benefit of concession, as on 05.03.2010 was specific as Rs.16,85,377/-. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, with reference to the contents of the said affidavit and also the particulars of other expenses incurred by the Bank as given in Annexure-R1 submits that, a balance sum of Rs. 71,320/- is due as on 31.08.010 and that unless and until the entire liability is cleared by the petitioners , the prayer to return the title deeds is not liable to be acted upon. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the earnest efforts taken by the petitioners to close the loan account have not been properly appreciated by the respondent Bank and the authorities of the Bank were all along taking a belligerent attitude to harass the petitioners. It is also stated that, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in computing the figures as given in Annexure-R1 fixing the allegedly remaining liability as Rs.71,320/- so as to get back the title deeds, which, according to the petitioners is rather an instance of 'pressure-tactics', quite unbecoming of a public sector bank like the respondent Bank. 6. On going through the materials on record, this Court CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1116 OF 2010 4 finds that there was 'no fact adjudication' by this Court while passing the judgment on 15.03.2010, fixing the actual figure, if liability was not cleared availing the benefit of concession. In other words, the emphasis was only with regard to the final figure, ie. Rs.16,85,377/-, if it was paid within 'ten' days. Since the said opportunity was not availed and the petitioners had opted to discharge the entire liability availing the benefit of installments, the petitioners are supposed to satisfy the actual liability. At the same time, since the final figure was not expressed by this Court, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the same. This Court does not find any contumacious act on the part of the respondents so as to proceed against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court case is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the figures by way of other appropriate proceedings. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to satisfy the amount shown in Annexure-R1 on or before 30th of this month, on which event, the CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No.1116 OF 2010 5 title deeds may be ordered to be returned. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that eventhough the figures given in Annexure-R1 speak about the liability as on 31.08.2010, it is asserted and assured that the Bank will be satisfied with the said amount (Rs.71,320/-), if the liability is cleared by the petitioners on or before the 30th of this month. In the said circumstance, the petitioners are granted time till 30.10.2010 to clear the liability as shown in Annexure-R1, on which event, the title deeds shall be returned to the petitioners within 'three days' from the date of clearance of the liability. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk