Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD – Appellant
Versus
PRINCE S/O. GEORGE – Respondent
Con.CASE(C) NO. 1032 OF 2025 | OP(C) NO.916 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.SABU GEORGE, SMT.B.ANUSREE, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SMT.MEERA P., SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON
For the Respondents: SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
Compromise terms in contempt actions must be clear; parties can seek remedies without immediate contempt proceedings if default occurs.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - The petitioner is found in wilful disobedience of a previous judgment - The terms of a compromise are restated, including payment obligations and consequences of default - A vehicle is to remain undisturbed until obligations are fulfilled. (Paras 1-4)
(B) The parties are encouraged to seek remedies as needed, without immediate contempt proceedings against the respondent for payment defaults. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner failed to adhere to the terms of the compromise set in the earlier judgment, resulting in the contempt petition. Payment timelines and conditions involving a vehicle are outlined clearly.
Findings of Court:
The court reiterates existing judgment terms and emphasizes the opportunity for parties to resolve their disputes amicably without imposing contempt immediately.
Issues: The main issues include the compliance with the payment terms and the procedure if defaults occur.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment clarifies that default terms are explicit and that contempt proceedings should not arise if the parties have renegotiated or settled issues amongst themselves.
Result: The contempt case is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed for contempt regarding judgment breach. (Para 1) |
| 2. payment obligations and provisions for default are clarified. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. opportunity for resolution without contempt proceedings is emphasized. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This contempt petition is filed for wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court dated 17.07.2025. It is submitted that the parties are settled before this Court in O.P.(c). No. 916/2024 and as for the terms of the compromise which is stated hereunder.
2. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to dispose of the original petition as follows:
I. Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of one month from today.
ii. The balance amount due along with accrued interest, charges, etc. shall be paid by the petitioner in eight equal monthly installments starting from 01.09.2024.
Iii. The undertaking of the petitioner that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11 BM 3181 which is released to him as per order dated 21.05.2024 will not be alienated till the whole amount due to respondent as directed above is discharged is recorded.
Iv. In case of any single default in payment of the instalment amount, the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 11 BM 3181 released to the petitioner as per order dated 21.05.2024 will be duly surrendered to the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the amounts were paid not in accordance with the terms of the compromise however it is delayed payments. The respondent counsel also files memo calculation and he has paid the amount Rs.10,000/- more than the amount of compromise between the parties.
4. As per the clause 4 of the judgment of this Court, provides the default clause as, “if any default in single payment of installment, the vehicle record to be released to the petitioner as per the order of this Court on 21.05.2024 and it will be duly surrender to the respondent”. When the 4th clause is available in the very judgment itself, the question of initiative contempt proceeding against the respondent for default of payment not arises. Therefore, this contempt petition is disposed of by giving opportunity to the parties apart from the petitioner to seek remedy if so advised.
The Contempt Case is disposed of.
