C. Chandran vs E.M. Abraham

Antony Dominic, J.—By judgment dated 21st August, 2009, WP(c). No. 17851/09 was disposed of directing the respondent to process the petitioner''s bill and to disburse the amount that is due. It is alleging non compliance with the above direction that this contempt petition has been filed.

According to the respondent, the bill amount due to the petitioner has been fully disbursed on 25.3.2010. While the petitioner acknowledges this payment, according to the petitioner Rs. 1,50,000/ - deposited towards security deposit is still not disbursed and to that extent there is noncompliance with the directions in the judgment.

However, the positive case of the respondent as contained in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has no legal right to claim refund of the security deposit without submitting the final bill in respect of the work undertaken in Adimaly and Munnar divisions. Although the petitioner asserts the incorrectness of this contention, fact remains that in pursuance to the direction in the judgment, the admitted amount has been paid. Therefore, if the petitioner has a case that he is entitled to get the security deposit also disbursed, petitioner will have to seek his remedies in appropriate proceedings and not by way of a Contempt Petition.

Contempt petition is closed.