Bipin Kumar Chaterjee A vs Bejoy Bhasker
2021 Latest Caselaw 20521 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                       PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                         CON.CASE(C) NO. 1393 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23456/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                   ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

             BIPIN KUMAR CHATERJEE A.
             AGED 57 YEARS
             S/O AYYAPPAN MASTER,
             RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLIL,
             KADATHY EAST, MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673.

             SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
             SRI.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
             SRI.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
             SRI.S.RAJEEV



RESPONDENT:

             BEJOY BHASKER
             AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL),
             COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,
             PERUMANOOR P.O, COCHIN PIN-682015.

             SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
             SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
             SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
             SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
             SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
             SRI.RAJA KANNAN




     THIS     CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1393 OF 2021
                                  2


                               JUDGMENT

When this contempt case was moved, the allegation of

the petitioner was that the directions in the judgment, dated

12.11.2020 had not been complied with by the respondent.

2. However, Sri.Nandakumar, learned senior counsel,

instructed by Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing

counsel for the respondent, pointed out that Annexure R1(a)

order had been issued and thus prayed that this contempt

case be closed.

3. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a reply producing

Annexure A5, which he asserts to be the Minutes of the

meeting of the company dated 23.02.2021, arguing that the

decision in Annexure R1(a) was taken without proper

application of mind.

4. I have heard Smt.P.K.Reshma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for the

respondent

5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore

submissions of the petitioner, as impelled by Smt.P.K.Reshma,

because if Annexure R1(a) order has been issued incorrectly CON.CASE(C) NO. 1393 OF 2021

or is vitiated for any other reason, the petitioner certainly will

have to challenge it appropriately and it will not be up to this

Court to decide such matters, while acting in the Contempt of

Court jurisdiction.

Resultantly, I close this contempt case; however, leaving

open all contentions of the petitioner, including that Annexure

R1(a) order has been issued in a casual manner, to be pursued

by him appropriately when Annexure R1(a) order is

challenged.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu CON.CASE(C) NO. 1393 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1393/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2020 IN WPC NO.23456 OF 2020.

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02.03.2021 SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, ALONG WITH ITS REPLY EMAIL DATED 20.03.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CONTEMNOR.

Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.03.2021 SENT BY THE CONTEMNOR TO THE PETITIONER.

Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 05.07.2021 PREFERRED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EMAILED ON 08.09.2021 PURPORTING TO BE THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 23.02.2021.

RESPONDENT ANNEXURE

Annexure R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED 12.11.2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 23456 OF 2020.