Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1769 (KER)

K. C. Antony, S/o. Late Chacko v. Biju. K IAS

2025-07-02

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 , 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non compliance of the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed in W.A.No .2319 of 2019. 2. The petitioner had filed the writ appeal challenging the termination of the contract as well the claim of the bills for the work executed by the petitioner including the release of security deposit. The Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of payment of undisputed amount as well as release of security deposit in paragraph No.4 of the judgment which is reproduced below: “4. Admittedly, as per 7th and part bill, the appellant was entitled to Rs.58,23,726/-. As seen from Annexure-A12, PWD already collected this amount from NABARD. It is also admitted in the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.2/2022 by PWD before this Court on 3/12/2019 that a sum of Rs.13,09,411/- is due under the 8th and final bill. As seen from Annexure-A10 produced along with I.A.No.1/2022 in the writ appeal, a sum of Rs.2,42,688.77 has been quantified as damage suffered. No other claim has been raised by PWD from the appellant. No one has a case that the new contractor engaged after the termination of the contract with the appellant has done the work covered by the part and 7th bill and 8th and final bill above.” 3. Thereafter the Division bench disposed of the writ appeal with the following direction: “9. We, in such circumstances, are of the view that the admitted amount under part and 7th and 8th and final bills, be released to the appellant, except the amount calculated towards damages and loss. The security deposit and any other amount payable to the appellant towards performance guarantee as per the contract also be released to the appellant. We make it clear that, if the appellant has any other claim, other than that of the admitted amounts as above under part and 7th and 8th and final bills including the withheld amount, he can approach the civil court. With liberty as above, we dispose of this appeal. Needful shall be done to comply with the direction to release the amount as above to the Construction Corporation within one month. With liberty as above, we dispose of this appeal. Needful shall be done to comply with the direction to release the amount as above to the Construction Corporation within one month. The Construction Corporation, on receipt of the amount, shall release the amount to the appellant within a further period of one month. No costs.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had admitted that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.58,23,726/- as per the 7th part bill and also admitted that a sum of Rs.13,09,411/- is due under the 8th and final bill. Therefore the respondents are obliged to pay the petitioner a total sum amounting to Rs.71,33,137/-. Moreover, the 5th respondent has not paid the security deposit. Therefore, the judgment has not been fully complied with. It is submitted that contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents for willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court. 5 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 has drawn our attention to a statement filed on their behalf in compliance with the order dated 22.01.2025, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4, which are reproduced below: “3. It is submitted that, the cheque amount of 7th part bill of Rs.41,47,647/- was credited to PW Deposit on 24.12.2019 and 8th and final bill amount of Rs.9,61,058/- was also transfer credited to the deposit on 30.03.2020. Hence, the total cheque amount comes to Rs.51,08,705/- covered by CC 7th and 8th and final bills. The 7th part bill was finalized after deducting statutory recoveries and also for surrendering the excess amount of Rs.17,27,112/- claimed in the said bill. 4. It is submitted that the amount covered by 7th and 8th and final bills was sanctioned for the release of Rs.48,66,016/- deducting the risk and cost amount of Rs.2,42,689/- to Construction Corporation as per proceedings dated 27.04.2023.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the total amount of Rs.51,08,705/- covered by 7th and 8th and final bill have been paid after finalizing and deducting statutory recoveries amounting to Rs.17,27,112/-. Therefore, they are not liable to pay Rs.71,33,137/-, which is claimed by the petitioner. There is no disobedience at all of the orders passed by this Court. In case, there is any dispute with respect to other claims, petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court for its adjudication. Therefore, they are not liable to pay Rs.71,33,137/-, which is claimed by the petitioner. There is no disobedience at all of the orders passed by this Court. In case, there is any dispute with respect to other claims, petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court for its adjudication. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact and direct payment. Accordingly this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be granted liberty to approach the Civil Court in respect of the outstanding amounts. So far as the refund of the security deposit of Rs.5,38,697/- is concerned, the same has not been paid by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent has not suffered any loss or damage, nor has he made any claim against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the aforesaid amount from the 5th respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. So far as payment of Rs.71,33,137/- is concerned, the respondents 3 and 4 have already paid an amount of Rs.51,08,705/- towards 7th, 8th and final bill after deducting statutory recoveries Therefore, it appears that the admitted amount has already been paid to the petitioner. Insofar as the other disputed amounts are concerned, they have not been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this Court. In any case, the disputed amounts cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. 10. So far as the non payment of security deposit of Rs.5,38,697/- is concerned, the 5th respondent is directed to refund the same as expeditiously as is possible, preferably within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Since no representation is made on behalf of the 5th respondent, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to the 5th respondent by speed post within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for enabling him to comply with the order passed by this Court. 11. Since no representation is made on behalf of the 5th respondent, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to the 5th respondent by speed post within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for enabling him to comply with the order passed by this Court. 11. In case the 5th respondent does not comply with the order within the time specified by this Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate applications seeking revival of the contempt petition, insofar as the refund of the security deposit amounting to Rs. 5,38,697/- is concerned. Accordingly we do not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. In fact as per the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the statement filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents, prima facie it appears that order has been complied by them. Accordingly the contempt case stands disposed of finally. The rule nisi issued is hereby discharged.