T.Sekar v. M.Ravi

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANCONTEMPT PETITION No.150 of 2009 ********T.Sekar,Managing Partner,S.V.S.Auto Investment,No.12, V.O.C.Street,Gudiyattam Town....PetitionerVs1.M.Ravi, No.5/18, Kamarajar Street, VOC Nagar, Sankaranpalayam, Vellore Town.2.D.Suresh Kumar, Kiddangu Street, Odugathur & Post, Vellore Taluk. ... RespondentsContempt Petition praying that this Court be pleasedto punish the respondents for disobeying the order dated05/01/2009 and made in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2009passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam.The above Contempt Petition coming on this day beforethis Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.Mani Pillai,Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.G.Saravanan,Advocate for the 1st respondent herein; and the 2ndpetitioner having not appeared in person or by advocate;and upon reading the petition and affidavit of T.Sekar,filed herein; the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 This contempt petition arises out of violation of theorder passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattamin I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2009, dated 05.1.2009 inrespect of seizure of a vehicle. 2.By the said order, Mr.V.Ranjith Kumar was appointedas the Advocate Commissioner to seize the vehicle inquestion and hand over its custody to the petitioner.Pursuant to the same, the Advocate Commissioner has seizedthe vehicle and also filed his report. In this connection,it is pertinent to point out here that before the seizureof the vehicle, the Commissioner has sought for thepermission of the Court to seek the help of the police forseizing the vehicle and only pursuant to that, he wentthere to seize the vehicle. The report filed by theAdvocate Commissioner in respect of the seizure of thevehicle is extracted below:-@7/kD thfdj;ij vLj;Jf;bfhz;L 8/00kzpastpy; ntg;g';Fg;gk; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;jjiyik fhtyh; jpU/fpUghfud; vd;gthplk; jftiybrhy;yptpl;L g[wg;gl;nlhk;/ m';fpUe;J 1000 kPl;lh; J}uk; te;jnghJ m';fpUe;j bgl;nuhy; g';f; mUfpy;gpd;dhy; bgah; tprhhpj;J bjhpe;Jbfhz;l Rnuc&; kw;Wk;rpyUld; TMV 5151 ,uz;L rf;fu thfdj;jpYk; ,d;Dk; rpy tz;ofspYk; te;J JCB tz;o kPJ fy; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3moj;J. Oiutiu moj;J tpl;L kDthfdj;ijrl;ltpnuhjkhf gpL';fpf;bfhz;L My';fhak; nuhl;oy;Xl;o brd;whh;fs;/ ehd; kw;Wk; kDjhuh; oiuth;Mfpnahh; mUfpypUe;J ntg;g';Fg;gk; fhty;epiyak;brd;W rk;gtk; Fwpj;J g[fhhpid vGjp bfhLj;njd;/nghyPrhh; CSR No.8/2002I tH';fp eltof;ifvLg;gjhf brhy;yp mDg;gptpl;lhh;fs;/8/thfdj;ij vjph;kDjhuhpd; Ml;fs;rl;ltpnuhjkhf gpL';fpr; brd;W bfhz;oUf;Fk;jftiy bfhLj;Jk; nghyPrhh; mjid gwpKjy; bra;avt;tpj eltof;ifa[k; nkw;bfhs;stpy;iy/9/kD thfdk; jw;nghJ kD vjph;kDhuh;fspd;Ml;fspd; ghJfhg;gpy; kiwj;J itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJnkw;go rk;gtj;ij ghh;f;Fk;nghJ 1. 2 vjph;kDjhuh;fs;rl;lj;ij kjpf;fhjth;fs;. epiwa Ml;fs;gyj;Jld; ,Ug;ghh;fs; vd bjhpfpwJ. Vdnt nfhh;;l;cj;jputpid bray;gLj;j nghyP!; cjtpapd;wpkDthfdj;ij vLj;Jtu ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ/10/ vdnt nghyP!; cjtpia ntz;o Fwpg;ghiz-a[ld; vdJ ,ilf;fhy mwpf;ifapid rkh;g;gpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/@3.A reading of the report would clearly indicate thatthe Commissioner having seized the vehicle, the contemnors'persons or henchmen came along in the road, intercepted thevehicle seized by the Commissioner near a petrol bunk, and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4they have even stoned on the vehicle to release it from thecustody of the Commissioner, who is an officer of theCourt. This is a very serious offence committed by thecontemnors. It is a direct violation of the Court order andthe seizure of the vehicle from the hands of theCommissioner is totally illegal. It is also pertinent tonote here that the Commissioner himself has given acomplaint at the Veppankuppam Police Station and the samehas been noted as C.S.R.No.8 of 2009. He has also furtherstated that he was not able to execute the warrant anyfurther in view of the fact that the contemnors have gottoo much manpower. In this state of affairs, we are painedto hear from an officer of the Court that the orders of theCourt are being flouted at the whims and fancies of thedefendants in the suit. 4.The only argument now put forward by the contemnorsis that on the very same date when the vehicle was eitherseized or released, as the case may be, as put forward bythe contemnors, an amount of Rs.1,13,540/-, which isalleged to be an arrears of amount on the seized vehicle,seems to have been paid by him on the file of the Court inO.S.No.4 of 2009 and that he continues to pay the arrearsof amount as on date without any fail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

55.The very representation that the payment, as soughtfor by the plaintiff, has been made will not cure thedefect or the misdeeds done by the defendants, especiallywhen the order of the Court has been flouted and violatedusing manpower and muscle power. The attitude of thecontemnors needs a stringent warning so as to prevent anysuch recurrence in future and also to act as a deterrentto others from flouting Court orders. Hence, we areconstrained to punish the contemnors for their act ofcontempt. No doubt, at this point of time, the learnedAdvocate appearing for the contemnors pleaded leniency onthe ground that the entire amount as claimed in the plaint,viz., Rs.1,13,540/- has been deposited by him in the Courton the same day. However, we are inclined to punish him byway of imposition of fine only to show that the actiondone by the contemnors is not in accordance with law.6.Therefore, we propose to levy a sum of Rs.2,000/- asfine to be paid by the contemnors to the Commissioner, whohas been humiliated by the contemnors' action. Thedefendants/contemnors should pay the fine amount ofRs.2000/- to the Commissioner by way of Demand Draft to bedrawn in the name of the Commissioner within a period oftwo weeks from this date and file a memo of compliance tothat effect before the concerned Court, i.e. theSubordinate Court. If the contemnors fail to pay the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6fine amount of Rs.2000/- in two weeks' time, we direct himto be kept in civil prison for a period of one month inlieu of the fine imposed. We, however, conclude with anote that such action of the defendants should not beallowed to be done by others hereafter and to show ouranguish, this punishment of fine is being imposed on thecontemnors. 7.The contempt petition is closed with the aforesaidobservations. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, theChief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, thisthe 29th day of June, 2009. SD/-DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS)//Certified to be true copy//Dated at Madras this the day of 2009.COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuingcertified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in thisformat. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 Cns.CONTEMPT PETITION No.150/2009THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA ANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANORDERDATED : 29/06/2009FOR APPROVAL :15/07/2009APPROVED ON :15/07/2009COPY TO:1.The Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam.2.Mr.Ranjith Kumar, Advocate Commissioner, Through Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam.