Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. NITIN JAMDAR, CJ, MR. JUSTICE S.MANU, J
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Raphael And Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
By this Appeal under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , the Kerala Electricity Board has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15 January 2025 in Con. Case (C) No.2436/2018 arising from W.P.(C)No.29650/2009. The Respondent - Raphael and Company filed the writ petition for quashing Exts. P4, P4(a) and P4(b) so far as they are limited to the benefits of full price variation.
2. Raphael and Company (the Company) had entered into a contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board (the Board) in 2005-2006 for a period of five years to supply PSC poles. One of the Clauses in the contract was regarding price variation, stating that if there is a variation of 10% in the cost of components, the benefit of the price variation would be given to the contractor. The Board had taken a stand that the price variation would apply prospectively from a particular date. The same was challenged by the Company by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge recorded that the only issue in the writ petition was regarding the claim for price variation for the period from the date of commencement of the contract till September 2008. By judgmen
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to introduce new orders or adjudicate beyond original judgment; it is confined to determining willful disobedience.
Contempt of court - LPA against the orders passed in contempt petition is not maintainable as said orders are interlocutory in nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against th....
The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of th....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot modify original orders; it is limited to assessing willful non-compliance.
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
Contempt jurisdiction must adhere to strict procedural norms and should not incorporate issues merits of the underlying dispute, as confirmed by established legal precedents.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to modify or review previous judgments; it is limited to determining willful non-compliance with original orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
