Mary Mathew, W/O.Late Sri.K.O.Mathew V. Gopinathan, Aged 53, S/O.P.T.Balakrishnan Nair, Executive Engineer, Pazhassi Irrigation Project Division No.II, Department of Water Resources, Kannur District, Kerala

Con.Case(C)/46/2007

AI Insights

In this contempt of court case, Mary Mathew, the appellant in a previous writ appeal, accused Gopinathan, an executive engineer, of willfully disobeying the High Court's orders concerning the financial settlement for materials used in a project managed by her late husband. The original writ appeal (W.A.No.2641 of 2005) had directed the respondents to calculate and retain the value of materials as of 1997, when the project was completed, and to pay the remaining amount due to the petitioner within two months. The respondent argued that they had complied with these directions and provided detailed calculations and payments. The court, after reviewing the submissions and calculations provided by the respondent, found that there was substantial compliance with the court's orders and dismissed the contempt petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2007] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799202 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2007
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.A.No.2641 of 2005
• Laws Referred To: Article 215 of the Constitution, Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M R SABU
• Assessee Lawyers: M C CHERIAN
• Keywords: Contempt of court; Writ Appeal; Disobedience; Material Price Calculation; Penal Recovery
• Section: 11; 12; 215

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2007 / 8TH ASHADHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 46 of 2007(S) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2641/2005 DATED 23.3.2006 PETITIONER: APPELLANT: ---------------------------- MARY MATHEW, W/O.LATE SRI.K.O.MATHEW, KANIYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN RESPONDENT: 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------- GOPINATHAN, AGED 53, S/O.P.T.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PAZHASSI IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C). NO. 46 OF 2007 S ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th June, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Appellant in W.A.No.2641 of 2005 is the complainant in this contempt petition. She alleges that the respondent in the contempt petition has disobeyed, wilfully and deliberately, the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of the writ appeal. Therefore, she is before us in this contempt petition with a request to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent in exercise of its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. Respondent has entered appearance through the learned counsel. He has filed a detailed counter and also a memo of calculation. 3. This Court while disposing of W.A.No.2641 of 2005 on 23rd March, 2006, had only observed as under: “In the circumstances as mentioned above, we set aside the order Ext.P5 and direct the respondents to work out the price of the materials obtainable in 1997 when the husband of the petitioner completed the job assigned to CONT.CASE (C). NO.46 OF 2007 :: 2 :: him and handed over possession. Let the price of the materials in the manner indicated above be worked out and retained by the department whereas the remaining amount due to the petitioner for the works carried out by the husband of the petitioner be made over to her within two months from today.” 4. Respondent has filed a detailed counter. In the counter it is stated that in addition to price of materials obtainable in 1997, they have calculated penal recovery of unreturned materials as on 1997 also. The said paragraph is relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this contempt petition. Therefore, the same is extracted. It is as under: “6. Penal Recovery of Un-returned materials as on 1997: As per the judgment in WA.2641/2005 filed by the petitioner, price of materials was worked out obtainable in 1997. A true copy of rates is produced herewith and marked as Annexure – II. Penal recovery was imposed as per agreement condition. A true copy of agreement condition is produced herewith and marked as Annexure- III. Cement: Cement 61.95 MT @ Rs.3650/MT Rs.226118.00 20% Surcharge Rs. 45224.00 1% Storage Rs. 2261.00 12.5% ST Rs. 28265 .00 Rs.301868.00 Deducted Cost of 61.95 MT Cement Recovered from previous bills and Last bill @ 1900/MT(As per agreement) Rs.(-)117705.00 Balance Rs.184163.00 =========== CONT.CASE (C). NO.46 OF 2007 :: 3 :: Steel: 25.447 MT Steel @ Rs.17150/MT Rs.436414.00 20% Surcharge Rs. 87283.00 1% Storage Rs. 4364.00 12.5% ST Rs. 54552.00 Rs. 582615.00 Deducted Cost of 25.447 MT Steel Recovered from previous bills and last bills @ Rs.12500/MT as per agreement. Rs.(-)318088.00 Balance Rs. 264527.00 ============ Copper Sheet: 213.565 MT @ Rs.198.45/Kg. Rs. 42382.00 20% Surcharge Rs. 8476.00 1% Storage Rs. 424.00 12.5% ST Rs. 5298.00 Rs. 56580.00 Total cost of un-returned materials is Rs. 505270.00 In addition to the usual recoveries were calculated in a final bill settled such as cost of issued materials, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Kerala Workers Welfare Fund, Cost of EC bags, Short conveyance and hire charges etc. total comes to Rs.774074/-.” 5. The one and the only direction that was issued by this Court while disposing of the writ appeal is to work out the price of the materials obtainable in 1997 when the husband of the petitioner completed the job assigned to him. CONT.CASE (C). NO.46 OF 2007 :: 4 :: 6. The respondent has worked out the bills and has supplied the same even to the petitioner's learned counsel. It is the allegation of the respondent that the complainant is still owes some money to the respondent. 7. Having seen the assertions and allegations made in the contempt petition, the orders passed by this Court and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, we are of the firm opinion that the respondent has substantially complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court. 8. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that cognizance of the contempt petition filed by the complainant need not be taken by us. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings requires to be dropped and it is dropped. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------- --------------------- Con.Case(C)NO.46/2007 JUDGMENT 29th June, 2007 --------------------- "