Evotex Private Limited vs Abdul Kader P.Y

Kerala High Court

Evotex Private Limited vs Abdul Kader P.Y on 20 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                      CON.CASE(C) NO. 482 OF 2024
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO.43450 OF 2023
                        OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

             EVOTEX PRIVATE LIMITED
             AGED 27 YEARS
             HOUSE NO.258, PERUMBALLY, KALLAR, RAJAPURAM P.O,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
             DIRECTOR MIDHUN KRISHNA, S/O. RAGHAVAN.M,
             MAVILA HOUSE, PERUMPALLY, KALLAR, RAJAPURAM,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671532
             BY ADVS.
             V.S.MANSOOR
             AKHIL BINOY


RESPONDENT:

             ABDUL KADER P.Y.
             (AGE AND FATHER,S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             THE BANK MANAGER, IDFC FIRST BANK, THRISSUR-EAST FORT
             BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, EAST FORT TOWER, OPP. LOURD
             CHURCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005


             SRI BIDAAN CHANDRAN-SC


     THIS    CONTEMPT OF   COURT CASE     (CIVIL) HAVING   COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C)NO.482 OF 2024           2

                              JUDGMENT

Sri.Bidan Chandran - learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he finds it practically difficult to file a counter affidavit because, his client is no longer in service. He added that, going by the requisition received by the Bank, no specific amount has been shown; and therefore, they are not in a position to defreeze the account. He asserted that, even going by the judgment, the petitioner could obtain any benefit only if a particular figure is shown in the requisition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on hearing Sri.Bidan Chandran as afore, submitted that liberty may be reserved to his client to invoke appropriate remedies, including to seek a review of the judgment.

In the afore circumstances, this contempt case is closed; however, with the afore requested liberty being fully reserved to the petitioner, for which purpose, all rival contentions in such regard are left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/20.5 CON.CASE(C)NO.482 OF 2024 3 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 482/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21/12/2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 43450 OF 2023 Annexure-B 4.CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/01/2024 IN WPC NO.43450 /2023