K. Sreekumar vs K.R.Jyothilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 6872 Ker

C.O.(C) No.359/2017
in W.P.(C) No. 27867/2016             : 1:

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

        FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

             Con.Case(C).No.359 OF 2017(S) IN WP(C). 27867/2016

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 27867/2016 DATED 28-10-2016 OF HIGH COURT
                             OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:
                K. SREEKUMAR
                S/O. LATE KRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, QUILON
                CONSULTING ENGINEERS,GOKULAM, 2ND FLOOR, BEACH ROAD,
                KOLLAM.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR

RESPONDENTs/1st AND 4TH RESPONDENTS:

        1       K.R.JYOTHILAL
                AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
                SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
                TRANSPORT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
                SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
        2       SHEELA THOMAS
                (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
                PETITIONER,SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,INFORMATION AND
                PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF
                KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
        3       K.V.MARTHANDAN
                AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,CHIEF
                ENGINEER (BOT PROJECTS),KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT
                FINANCE CORPORATION (KTDFC),6TH FLOOR, TRANS
                TOWERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006.
                R1 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL K.R.SC KTDFC
                R3 BY SRI. T.P. SAJAN




      THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
      ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 C.O.(C) No.359/2017
in W.P.(C) No. 27867/2016               : 2:



              Dated this the 26th day of February, 2021.

                                   JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 28.10.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 27867 of

2016 is not complied with.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate affidavits explaining

the circumstances as to why they did not make the payment due to

the petitioner.

3. However, today, when the matter is taken up for

consideration, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the Kerala Transport Development

Finance Corporation (KTDFC) submitted that on 30.03.2017, an

amount of Rs.42,10,253/- was paid to the petitioner, which was the

admitted amount according to the KTDFC. However, the learned

counsel for the petitioner raised a dispute with respect to the admitted

amount.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 and 3. On going through the judgment, I find that while C.O.(C) No.359/2017

the judgment was rendered, the dispute raised by the KTDFC was

taken into account and recorded that according to the KTDFC, the

amount due was only Rs. 43,82,277/-. Taking note of the above said

fact also, direction was issued to the respondents to pay the admitted

amount due, to the petitioner.

5 The petitioner had a case that an amount of

Rs.64,55,262/- is due to him. However, when the direction was issued,

the undisputed figure pointed out by the KTDFC as above was noted

by this Court. So also, I am conscious of the fact that in a contempt

proceeding, adjudication with respect to the actual amount due to the

petitioner is not possible to be undertaken.

6 Taking into account the fact that substantial payments as

above were made by the respondents and which figure, according to

the respondents, is the admitted amount due to the petitioner, I do not

think anything survives to be considered in this Contempt Case.

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving open the liberty of

the petitioner to make any claims against the respondents before the

appropriate forum, if aggrieved and advised so.

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv