Contempt case full order of THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Contempt Petition No.68 of 2019 and Sub Applications (OS).No.103 of 2019 in W.M.P.No.18286 of 2018 in W.P.No.15396 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.68 of 2019 and
Sub Applications (OS).No.103 of 2019 in
W.M.P.No.18286 of 2018 in
W.P.No.15396 of 2018
1. U.Jinadoss
2. D.Selvaraj
3. A.Ramakrishnan
4.Poongkuzali
5.K.Kathirvelu …Petitioners
Vs.
1.Mr.D.Nagaraj
Plot No.4, Door No.5,
Flat No.G-2, Devaraj Nagar Main Road
Dasarathapuram Saligramam
Chennai – 600 093.
2.Saravanakumar The Sub Registrar Velachery, Chennai.
3.Venkataram Raju Yellam Raju
4.K.Suryanarayanan
(R3 & R4 are impleaded as per order
Sub.A.71/19 on 08.02.2019 in Contp.No.68/19) …Respondents
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the respondent with maximum punishment for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 25.06.2018 in W.M.P.No.18286 of 2018 in W.P.No.15396 of 2018.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Povendra Perumal
For Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
For Respondents : R1 – M/s.T.K.S.Bharathy
R2 – Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
R3 & R4 – Mr.R.Radha pandian
Mr.J.Subbiah
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for
willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 25.06.2018 passed in W.M.P.No.18286 of 2018 in W.P.No.15396 of 2018.
2. This Court passed an order, directing the parties to maintainStatus-Quo on 25th June 2018. The petitioner states that the writ petition was filed to set aside the award passed in Lok Adalat in O.S.No.1091 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Alandur in as much as it deals with the rights in respect of the properties and for consequential direction to cancel the sale deed dated 07.07.2017 executed by the second respondent in the writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the miscellaneous petition was filed, seeking an order of injunction and this Court directed the parties to maintain Status-Quo to avoid further complications and to consider the issues. On receipt of the order copy by a communication dated 25.06.2018, which was acknowledged by the respondent on 27.06.2018. The copy of the order passed by this Court was sent to the respondents. The interim order has been extended until further orders and is in force and in operation.
3. When the interim order of Status-Quo is in force, the contempt petitioner came to know that in utter violation and in willful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court, the first respondent Mr.D.Nagarajan had executed a Sale Deed favouring one Mr. Venkataram Yellam Raju on
02.07.2018, which was registered as Document No.3707 of 2018 by the Sub-Registrar, purporting to convey an extent of 300 Sq.ft of undivided share in the Plot No.730, Ram Nagar South, 7th Main Road and registered as Document No.3706 of 2018.
4. Four documents were registered as Document No.3706 & 3707 of 2018 and 7633 & 7634 of 2018 are executed in favour of Mr.Suriyanarayanan.
5. Knowing these facts, the contempt petitioner made an enquiry
and found that in violation of the interim order passed by this Court, the first respondent executed these documents, in spite of the fact that the copy of the interim order was communicated to the first respondent. Thus, the first respondent has committed Contempt of Court wilfully and wantonly. Immediately, the petitioner issued a Contempt Notice on 08.10.2018 to the respondents and the purchaser through his counsel, calling upon to cancel the documents executed in violation of the interim order passed by this
Court in order dated 25.06.2018. The said legal notice was received by the respondents. However, they did not take any steps to cancel the said documents. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the contempt
petition.
6. This Court provided several opportunities to the first
respondent and the first respondent also had given repeated undertaking before this Court even in writing that he will cancel the Sale deeds. The first respondent used to be present before this Court on several occasions and made submissions that he will execute the cancellation deed immediately. Believing the words of the first respondent and based on the undertaking given by him, this Court granted several opportunities. The details of dates and events and the hearing dates and opportunities provided to the first respondent are extracted hereunder:

7. On 18.11.2021 also, this Court passed orders, which reads as
under:
“The first respondent, Mr.D.Nagaraj has filed an affidavit of undertaking on 07.02.2020. In the said affidavit of undertaking, the first respondent undertook to cancel the four documents dated 02.07.2018, 02.07.2018, 20.12.2018 and 20.12.2018. The undertaking was recorded by this Court and time was granted enabling the first respondent to comply with the said undertaking.
2. The contempt petition was entertained and the orders passed in the contempt petition during various hearings are detailed as under:-
(1) Bailable Warrant was issued by this Court on
11.11.2020 against the first respondent.
(2) Thereafter, Statutory Notice was also issued against the first respondent on 21.04.2021.
(3) Again on 25.06.2021, this Court issued NonBailable Warrant against the first respondent and the matter was again posted on 05.07.2021.
(4) On 05.07.2021, on the request made by the first respondent-Contempor due to his sickness and also taking into consideration of his undertaking given on that day, the matter was posted for further hearing during the third week of September 2021.
(5) On 17.09.2021, for filing of documents by the first respondent, the matter got adjourned to 24.09.2021 and on 24.09.2021, the matter was posted under the caption ‘For Orders’ on 27.09.2021.
(6) On 27.09.2021, in view of the fact that new counsel entered appearance, this Court gave a final chance to the contemnor and posted the matter under the caption ‘For Passing Orders’ on 05.10.2021.
(7) On 05.10.2021, since the first contemnor has given an undertaking that he will execute the cancellation deed within a period of three weeks, this Court once again listed the matter under the caption ‘For Orders’ on 29.10.2021 and on the said day, the matter was once again listed under the caption ‘For Orders’ on 01.11.2021.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.11.2021, due to Deepawali Festival, this Court had granted further opportunity to the first respondent to execute the cancellation deed. The first respondent has also made a submission that he has made all preparations to cancel the documents and he will do it within a period of one week.
4. However, when the matter was called on 15.11.2021, again both the first respondent as well as his counsel appeared before this Court and requested to grant further time. This Court has leniently and gracefully granted time to the first respondent to complete the process on or before 19.11.2021.
5. When the matter is called in the morning session of today i.e., on 19.11.2021, none appeared for the first respondent and the first respondent, in person, also has not appeared. Thus, the matter is passed over. However, when the matter is called again at 03.30 P.M., there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent. Thus, this Court is inclined to issue Non-Bailable Warrant. Accordingly, the Non-Bailable Warrant is issued and the Commissioner of Police has to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant through Jurisdictional Police and produce the first respondent before this Court on 23.11.2021 at 10.30 A.M.
6. Post the matter under the caption “For Orders” on 23.11.2021.”
8. Even on earlier occasion, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued
against the first respondent and he appeared before this Court and made an undertaking that he will execute the Cancellation Deed. Accordingly, the Non-Bailable Warrant was recalled. Again, the first respondent took time for complying with the undertaking. However, failed to do so without any valid reason. Thus, left with no option, once again, this Court issued NonBailable Warrant on 19.11.2021, which is executed now by Mr.Thompson
Xavier, Inspector of Police, R5-Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai – 92 and the first respondent is produced before this Court today.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the
first respondent throughout the proceedings establishes that he has no respect towards the proceedings of the Court and the law.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent on several occasions made representations that as per the undertakings, she has asked the first respondent to execute the Cancellation
Deed. The learned counsel made a submission before this Court that she will ensure that the Cancellation Deed are executed without any further delay. In spite of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Cancellation Deeds are not executed till today. On every hearing, the first respondent used to plead flimsy reasons and sought for time. This Court also graciously granted time, considering various factors, enabling the first respondent to execute the cancellation deed. Even today, the learned counsel for the first respondent made a submission that she made several requests to the first respondent to comply with the order as the first respondent has given undertaking in writing and in oral before this Court on several occasions, so also the learned counsel made a submission, trusting the words of the first respondent.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that a liberal approach
was made in this case towards the first respondent, enabling him to comply with the orders as he himself undertook that he will execute the Cancellation Deed. The leniency granted by this Court by granting several adjournments are undoubtedly abused and taken casually and the first respondent continued to be violating the orders passed by this Court. Thus, this Court could able to form a opinion that the 1st respondent has willfully and intentionally committed contempt of Court, understanding the consequences. The first respondent and his behaviour before this Court prove that he has no respect towards the Court proceedings and abused the process of the Court proceedings by giving false undertakings and by not complying with the same, even after several adjournments granted. Thus, the first respondent has committed contempt of Court willfully and intentionally and consequentially liable to be punished.
12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to convict the first
respondent Mr.D.Nagaraj to undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
13. In view of the fact that in spite of several opportunities, the
first respondent has not executed the Cancellation Deed, this Court has inclined to issue appropriate directions to the Sub-Registrar, Velachery, Chennai. Accordingly, the Second respondent / Sub-Registrar, Velachery,
Chennai is directed to cancel the Sale Deeds and construction agreement executed on 02.07.2018 in Document No.3706 & 3707 of 2018 and effect such cancellation in all the Registration records and enter the same in the Encumbrance Certificates.
14. The Sub-Registrar, Velachery is directed to execute the
cancellation of the above documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. With the above directions, the Contempt Petition stands
allowed. No costs.
23.11.2021
Kak
Note: Registry is directed to issue order copy today within one hour before 4.00 p.m.
Copy to
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Velachery,
Chennai -42
2.The Inspector of Police,
R5 – Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai – 92.
3.The Judicial Magistrate, 23rd M.M.Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras – 104.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kak
Contempt Petition No.68 of 2019
23.11.2021