Usha Radhakrishnan vs Suma. V. K
2023 Latest Caselaw 1807 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
       WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA, 1944
                         CON.CASE(C) NO. 237 OF 2023
      AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 37979/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

              USHA RADHAKRISHNAN,
              AGED 42 YEARS
              W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN. T. R,
              BINDU NIVAS,
              SEA VIEW WARD, BAZAR POST
              ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

              BY ADVS.
              B.PRAMOD
              BIJU VIGNESWAR


RESPONDENTS:

              SUMA. V. K,
              THE MANAGER,
              UNION BANK OF INDIA,
              ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, KABEER PLAZA,
              VADAI CANAL ROAD, MULLACKAL,
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 688011

              BY ADVS.
              SHRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
              ASP.KURUP
              SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
              C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
              SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
              RENI A. MATHEW(K/524/2022)



     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE (c) No.237 OF 2023
                                       2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 01st day of February, 2023

Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that

Annexure-R1A order is not passed in strict

compliance of the direction issued by this Court. It

is submitted that the intention of the Court is clear

from the 1st sentence of this Court's order. Even

then, the respondent proceeded to pass Annexure-

R1A order with the deliberate intention of denying

loan to the petitioner.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for the bank

submitted that this Court's direction has not been

violated and, on the other hand, the order is passed

after taking into account all relevant aspects.

Moreover, since an order is passed, the petitioner

can challenge the order, if aggrieved, but cannot

proceed with the Contempt of Court Case.

3. No doubt, in view of Annexure-R1A order, the

petitioner will have to resort to other remedies. CON.CASE (c) No.237 OF 2023

At the same time, I find merit in the submission that

the order is passed without adverting to the

documents produced along with the loan application.

Even then, no deliberate and intentional violation

can be attributed.

The Contempt of Court Case is hence closed,

reserving the petitioner's right to challenge

Annexure-R1 A order.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/1-2 CON.CASE (c) No.237 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 237/2023

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.01.2023 IN W. P. C. NO. 37979/20222 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURA R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER BY THE BANK ANNEXURAER1B A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF ANNEXURE R1A ANNEXURE R1 C A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED 29/7/2022

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE