Kerala Businessman Kochouseph Chittilappilly objects to personal remarks by Judge in pending case, writes to Chief Justice

Entrepreneur and founder of V-Guard Industries Kochouseph Chittilappilly has written a letter to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court Hrishikesh Roy objecting to certain oral remarks made against him by a sitting judge.

In the letter, a copy of which has been sent to the Chief Justice of India, Chittilappilly has asked:

“Are personal remarks quintessential for the dispensation of justice in matters pending before the Courts?”

The remarks in question were made by Justice Devan Ramachandran during the hearing of a writ petition filed by one Vijesh Vijayan seeking compensation for an accident sustained by him in an amusement park owned by the company founded by Chittilappilly.

Chittilappilly is not a party to the said petition in the High Court; one George Joseph, who is the current Managing Director of the company, is representing the company.

“I am the founder of the said Company and at the time of institution of the said Writ Petition I was the Managing Director. It may kindly be noted that, Mr. George Joseph is the present Managing Director representing the Company in the Writ Petition and I, Kochouseph Chittilappilly, is not a party to the said proceedings. In 2016, a memo was filed regarding the change of name of the Company and Managing Director.”

Despite this, Chittilappilly writes,

“certain press & media have been publishing disparaging remarks against me purported to be made orally by a Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala before which the said Writ Petition is pending.”

As a result of the continued publication of remarks purported to be made by the Single Bench of the High Court, he is being bombarded with questions from well-wishers and the general public regarding the veracity of reporting and soundness of the remarks, says Chittilappilly.

He goes on to cite the various remarks made by the judge and gives his response to each remark.

A few oral remarks purported to be made by the Single Bench of the High Court and published by media are the following:

• “Why is Chittilappilly – who roams the world in rockets – inconsiderate to this young man?”
• “This is an incident which exposes those people who seek big publicity by making small charitable contributions”.
• “It’s immaterial how much money you make – you will not be able to take a single penny to the other world.”
• “The Company is worthless.”
• “The respect towards him is lost.”

In his response to the same, Chittilappilly has set out the details of the philanthropic and charitable work done by him in his personal capacity, and the company founded by him.

In the case being heard by the Kerala High Court, the company extended financial assistance to Vijesh in 2003 to cover 60% of his initial medical expenses, which was Rs. 60,000 (back in 2003).

Further, while the petition was pending before the High Court, Pain and Palliative Care Society, Thrissur approached him in 2013 for financial assistance to empower Vijesh to secure his future and support his family. An amount of Rs. 2 lakh was transferred from Chittilappilly’s charitable foundation to the said society in this regard. This fact has been conveniently concealed by the petitioner during the proceedings, states Chittilappilly.

Regarding the remarks made against him by the Court, Chittilappilly says that they are not even remotely connected to the case, and have had a damaging effect on his reputation and the image of the company.

Chittilappilly concludes his letter by asking the question:

“Are personal remarks – as seen published above – quintessential for the dispensation of justice in matters pending before the Courts?”

Read the letter below.