The Authorised Representative vs Mary Jose
2021 Latest Caselaw 2398 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.51 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 21727/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21727/2019(M) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER:

              THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
              STATE CORDINATOR (LEGAL) CFD ASSET RECOVERY DIVISION,
              M/S INDUSIND BANK, CFD, RAMA BHAVAN, PARUTHELI PALAM,
              TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY,
              COCHIN-682 024.

              BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

RESPONDENT:

              MARY JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS
              W/O JOSE, MAPPANADIYIL HOUSE, KARUNAPURAM P.O.,
              KARUNAPURAM, IDUKKI-685 552.


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.51 OF 2021

                                        2


                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

This contempt case has been filed on the allegation that

the respondent has violated the directions in the judgment

dated 09.08.2019 and has refused to make payment as ordered

therein.

2. Even when I hear Sri.Varghese C. Kuriakose, the

learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines, the fact is

that in the judgment in question, I have clarified that if there is

any default committed by the respondent in making payment

as per the directions therein, the benefits granted to her would

stand withdrawn and that the Bank will be at liberty to recover

the entire liability from her, by continuing with the

proceedings from the stage at which it was available on that

date. Obviously, therefore, a contempt case against the

respondent is not maintainable, because the remedy of the

petitioner - Bank will be to recover the entire liability from the

respondent.

3. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Varghese

C.Kuriakose submitted that his client has approached this Con.Case(C).No.51 OF 2021

Court seeking action against the respondent only because, in

paragraph 5 of the judgment, she has been directed to

surrender the vehicle to the Bank without them having to

obtain any further orders from Court.

4. Even this being so recorded in the judgment, I do not

think that a contempt action will lie, particularly since it is

obvious that the Bank can take possession of the vehicle even

without having to approach the Court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in view of

the consent granted by the petitioner as recorded in the

judgment.

I, therefore, reiteratingly hold that no contempt action

against the respondent can be taken; but that the Bank will be

at liberty to take possession of the vehicle, if they are so

desirous, in terms of the liberty given to them and recorded in

paragraph 5 of the judgment in question.

In the afore circumstances, I close this contempt case

without any other order.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

stu JUDGE Con.Case(C).No.51 OF 2021

Con.Case(C).No.51 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.2019 IN WPC NO 21727/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT