BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on :  11.07.2022

Delivered on :  08.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR and

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

Cont.A(MD)Nos.3 to 10 of 2022 in

Cont P(MD)Nos.1896 and 1897 of2021

C.M.P(MD).Nos.4283, 4286 to 4292, 4294 to4297, 4889 and 5048 of 2022

Cont A(MD)No.3 of 2022

D.Thangapazham                                                     .. Appellant/5^th Respondent

Vs.

1.K.Albert Inbaraj

S/o.Kanniah

Member, Church Council,

Tamil evangelical Lutheran Church,

No.220, Mullai Nagar,

Kuppamma Chatram,

Kailvandu Post,

Thiruvallur Taluk and Post                     ..1^st Respondent/ Contempt Petitioner

2.Rt.Rev D.Daniel Jayaraj

S/o.Mr.Devasagayam,

Bishop/President

Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,    Tranquebar House, Melapudur,    Trichy-1.

3.Rev.J.Chelladurai,

S/o.Mr.Jestin

Member Church Council,

Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,

Chairman / Pastor, TELC Church

No.1981, Kunjithapatham Nagar,

South Town Station,    Mayiladuthurai,

Nagapattinam District.

4.D.Wilfred Daniel,

S/o.Daniel Arul,

Member, Church Council,

Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,

No.162, Arul Illam,

Church Street,

NGO Colony,

Salamedu, Villupuram-605 402.

5.Rev.S.Samuel Abraham,

S/o.Soosai,

Vice President, Church Council,

Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,

Chairman / Pastor,

No.5/3053/, 1^st Street,    Bexel Nagar, Matchuvadi,    Pudukottai.

6.R.Benjamin Jeyaraj,

S/o.Rajarethinam,

Tamil Evangelical lutheran Church,

No.968, TELC Church Campus,

Raja Street,

Coimbatore-641 001.           … Respondents/Respondents1to7 and 6

Prayer: Contempt Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, against the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition(MD) No.1897 of 2021.

For Appellant	:  Mr.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel    for Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
For R1	:  Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar    for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For R3 & R4	:  Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
	for Mr.R.Vignesh
For R2	:   Mr.K.R.Shivasankar
For R5	:   Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
For R6	:   Mr.S.Sankar

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,)

All these contempt appeals have been filed against the common order

passed by the learned Single Judge punishing the respondents in contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)Nos.1896 and 1897 of 2021 for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M.A(MD)Nos.619 of 2021.

2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

3.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these contempt

appeals are as follows.

The suit in O.S.No.253 of 2022 was filed before the First Additional

District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, (TELC) represented by its Secretary Church Council originally along with six others. On account of change of sides/change of circumstances, the plaint was amended. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs 2,5 and 7 were transposed as defendants 4 to 6. The prayer in the suit is as follows:

(i)To declare by invoking of Rule 128(12) of Church Rules 1991 by

the First Defendant to assume the office of Secretary, Church Council and Treasurer, Church Council by his letters dated 30.10.2020 as abinitionull and viod;

(ii)To declare declaring the Bishop/President TELC Emergency

Circular No.4/2020 dated 01.11.2020 issued by the First Defendant invoking

Rule 194 of the Church Rules 1991 as abinitio null and void;

(iii)For permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one

claiming any right under them from interfering with the functioning of the Plaintiffs as members and office bearers of Church Council for the Triennium

2019-2022 and carry out their duties as per the Rules either by issuing any

Circular or Letter to the Pastors/Chairman/Candidates of Pastorates/Office Bearers of TELC/Boards/Station Managers/Staff or Members of TELC without the approval of the Church Council or in any manner whatsoever;

(iv)To declare that the continuance of Rt.Rev.Daniel Jeyaraj as

Bishop/President of TELC, Trichy from 14.01.2021 is illegal and null and void; (v)For a permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant from

acting as Bishop/President of TELC, Trichy.

(vi)For a mandatory injunction directing the First Defendants to hand

over all the TELC records/documents/accounts statements’/correspondents/keys in his custody to the plaintiffs forthwith.

4.Immediately after the suit was laid, an application in I.A.No.2 of

2020 in O.S.No.253 of 2020 was filed before the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli, to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., on the ground that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The said application was allowed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by order dated 21.12.2020. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs 1 & 3 before this Court in A.S(MD)No. 18 of 2021. This Court after referring to the plaint and the various allegations, allowed the appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court rejecting the plaint. The parties to the suit were given liberty to seek interim relief if any. It is noted that the second plaintiff is the Secretary of the Church Council was also represented the first plaintiff in his capacity as Secretary as per the plaint.

5.The plaintiffs in the suit filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.253 of 2020 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C., for temporary injunction restraining the defendants or any one claiming any right under them from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs as members and office bearers of Church Council for the Triennium 2019-2022 and carry out their duties as per the Rules either by issuing any circular or letter to the Pastors/Chairman/Candidates of Pastorates/Office Bearers of TELC/ Boards/Station Managers/Staff or Members of TELC without the approval of the Church Council or in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit. As per Rule 128(12) of T.E.L.C Church Rules, the Bishop has the right to assume the functions of the office bearers of the Church Council or its members for a particular purpose only subject to the approval of Church Council. Under Rule 194 of T.E.L.C Church Rules, in case of emergency, the Bishop has the power to assume the power of Church Council. When the Council is in office, the Bishop had assumed the office of secretaryship without the approval of Church Council and has assumed the functions of Church Council to ratify his decision. This was challenged in the suit and in the interlocutory applications. The application for injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants in C.M.A, who are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the suit, preferred C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021 before this Court.  The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the documents, evidence and  various provisions of rules governing the administration of T.E.L.C Church, came to the conclusion in favour of the appellant in C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021 and

granted the relief of injunction in the following lines:

“18.Considering these aspects, this Court is inclined to         grant         interim         injunction         restraining             the respondents/defendants or any one claiming any right under them from interfering with the functioning of the Plaintiff as members and office bearers of Church Council for the Triennium 2019-2011 and carry out their duties as per the Rules either by issuing            any         Circular               or         Letter               to             the

Pastors/Chairman/Candidates of Pastorates/Office Bearers of TELC/Boards/Station Managers/Staff or Members of TELC without the approval of the Church Council or in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit.”

6.While granting interim injunction, the learned Single Judge found that

as per Rule 128(12) of T.E.L.C Church Rules, the power of the President(Bishop) to assume the functions of any of the office bearers of Church Council is subject to the approval of Church Council and that the assumption of office of Secretary without approval of Church Council is not valid. It has also held that there is no emergency situation to abrogate Church Council. While refusing to grant interim injunction, the trial Court found that the first respondent has invoked Rule 128(12) of the Church Rules to assume the office of the Secretary of the Church Council. It is further found by the trial Court that the Bishop had invoked Rule 194 of the Church Rules abrogating the Church council through the proceedings dated 01.11.2020. Since the action taken by the Bishop invoking Rules 128 and 194 of the Church Rules is also challenged in the suit, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs cannot be treated as members or office bearers of the Church Council. Therefore, the trial Court held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff to get any interim relief.  As the trial Court was of the view that the validity of the actions by the Bishop can be decided only in the suit. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to discharge the function of the members or Office bearers of the Church Council. However, while allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court specifically held that the Bishop without the approval of the Church Council cannot exercise the power of any of the office bearers. Further the learned single Judge held that the Church Council which is the elected body shall be permitted to function till the expiry of its term in May 2022. After the grant of interim order, surprisingly on 27.11.2021 the meeting of the Church Council was convened by the Bishop. The manner in which the meeting was convened and the decision was taken in the meeting are seen from the official communication sent by the Bishop and the newly elected Secretary in the following lines:

“To,

All the pastors, candidates, District chairmen,

Superintending Ministers, DE Secretaries, PC/AC Secretaries,

PC/AC Treasurers, heads of the institutions, Home managers, Mission Partners of TELC.

Greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As per the order of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as well the request from the Church Council members, we convened the urgent Church Council Meeting today (27.11.2021) to discuss about the order of the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in CMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.12.2021 in details. The following church council members were present., Rev S. Samuel Abraham, Rev. J. Chelladurai, Mr. R. Benjamin Jeyaraj, Mr. R. Thangapazham and Mr. D. Wilfred Daniel along with the Bishop/President, TELC.

Mr. A. Maher Antony, Rev.  Dr. J.G. Jacob Sundarsingh and Mr. K. Albert Inbaraj did not attend this meeting in spite of notice sent to them even by yesterday.

The Church Council unanimously passed the following resolutions.

This Church Council disapproves the meeting dated 29.10.2020, 30.10.2020 and 31.10.2020 as well as the outcome of the meeting since it has been done on the ill advice of Mr. A. Maher Antony and due to his wrong guidance without following the Church Rules and without seeking the advice of the Bishop/President or without requesting him to convene the Church Council Meeting. We seek apology of the most Revered and Respected Bishop/President, TELC in conducting that meeting against the interest of the Church.

This Church Council approves the resolution passed by SCC (General Body of TELC) dated 10.11.2020, 29.12.2020 and 08.01.2021 more particularly in extending the age of the clergies in the Court from 65 to 67.

This Church Council approves the Emergency Circular of Bishop/President, TELC dated 30.10.2020 issued by the Bishop/President. TELC in invoking Rule 128(12). Hence the necessity arises to elect the new secretary to the Church Council,

TELC.

Mr. R. Thangapazham is elected as the Secretary

Church Council. His contact address is P Box No.  8,

Tranqueber House Trichy – 620 001, his mobile no: 94428 16222.

Hereafter, Mr. A. Maher Antony can continue as a Church Council member but cannot claim to be the Secretary of the Church Council, TELC and he shall not issue any notification or circular claiming to be the secretary Church Council, TELC.

This venerable Church Council records that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in CMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.11.2021, the most respected and Revered Bishop/President, TELC agrees to withdraw Bishop/President, TELC Emergency Circular No.

4.2020 dated Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 issued by the Bishop/President, TELC is withdrawn. Here after the Venerable Church Council is restored and it shall continue to discharge its function till the end of the Triennium

(2019-2022)

It is hereby recorded to issue the proceedings of the

Church Council meeting immediately and circulated to all the

Pastors, Candidates, PC/AC Secretary, PC/AC Treasurer of the

Pastorates, SCC Members, DE Secretaries, Heads of the Institutions, Congregation and Mission Partners besides informing to the 1^st Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli in O.S. 253/2020 and to do the needful.

The meeting came to end with closing prayer by Rev. S.

Samuel Abraham and benediction by the Revered

Bishop/President TELC.

The pastors and candidates are requested to announce this circular from the pulpit during the divine service on 28.11.2021 and display it on the notice board.

We expect your fullest cooperation for the better administration in TELC.“

7.The minutes of the Church council meeting dated 27.11.2021 is

also given by the appellants in their typed-set, which reads as follows:

“Church Council Members:

1. Rev. D. Daniel Jayaraj, Bishop/President, TELC –

(Present)

2. S. Samuel Abraham, Vice- President, TELC – (Present)

3. Rev. J. Chelladurai	– (Present)
4. Rev. Dr. J.G. Jacob Sundarsingh	–(Absent)
5. Mr. A. Maher Antony	– (Absent)
6. Mr. R. Thangapazham	– (Present)
7. Mr. R. Benjamin Jayaraj	– (Present)
8. Mr. D. Wilfred Daniel	– (Present)
9. Mr. K. Albert Inbaraj	– (Absent)

Quorum. We have sufficient members to convene meeting as per the Church rule 123

Resolution No: 1

We thank the Bishop/President, TELC for convening the urgent

Church Council Meeting today (27.11.2021) since the Honourable

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has directed the

Bishop/President to act with approval of the Church Council.

Resolution No.2

This Church Council disapproves the meeting dated 29.10.2020, 30.10.2020 and 31.10.2020 as well as the outcome of the meeting since it has been done on the ill advice of Mr.A.Maher Antony and due to the wrong guidance without following the Church Rules and without seeking the advice of the Bishop/President or without requesting him to convene the Church Council meeting. We seek apology of the Most Revered and Respected Bishop/President. TELC in conducting that meeting against the interest of the Church.

Resolution No.3

This Church Council approves the resolutions passed by SCC (General Body of TELC) dated 10.11.2020, 29.12.2020 and 08.01.2021 more particularly in extending the age of the all the clergies in the Church from 65 to 67

Resolution No.4

The Church Council approves the Emergency Circular of

Bishop/President, TELC dated 30.10.2020 issued by the Bishop/President. TELC in invoking Rule 128(!2). Hence, the necessity arises to elect the new secretary to the Church Council TELC.

Resolution No.5

This Venerable Church Council record that in view of the order passed by the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in CMA(MD)No.619/2021 dated 26.11.2021, the Most Respected and Revered Bishop/President, TELC agrees to withdraw Bishop/President, TELC Emergency Circular No.4/2020

Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 by invoking

Rule 194 of the Church Rule. Hence, Bishop/President, TELC

Emergency Circular No.4/2020 Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 issued by the Bishop/President, TELC is withdrawn. Here after the Venerable Church Council is restored and it shall continue to discharge its function till the end of the

Triennium(2019-2022)

Resolution No.6

It is hereby recorded to issue the proceedings of the Church

Council meeting immediately and circulated to all the Pastors,

Candidates. PC/AC Secretary, PC/AC Treasurer of the Pastorates, SCC Members, DE Secretaries, Heads of the Intuitions.

Congregation and Mission Partners besides informing to the I additional District Court(PCR) Tiruchirappalli in O.S.253/2020 and to do the needful.

The meeting came to end with closing prayer by Rev.S.Samuel

Abraham and benediction by the Revered Bishop/President,

TELC.”

8.In view of the daring and illegal act of the appellants by convening

a meeting on 27.11.2021 to circumvent the order granting injunction, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as well as the 8^th respondent in C.M.A by name K.Albert Inbaraj filed independent contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)Nos.1896 and 1897 of 2021 against the respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021. The contempt applications were hotly contested. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, he tendered unconditional apology in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that he has committed any contempt.

9.All the other respondents in the two contempt petitions as well as

the sub-applications filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. It is to be noted that in the contempt petitions sub applications were filed for appointment of administrators to supervise the function of the Church council and to conduct the election for Bishop. The learned Judge, considering the conduct of the appellants while convening the meeting on

27.11.2021 and the nature of the resolutions passed by them, found that the resolutions prove the wilful disobedience and disrespect shown by the respondents 1 to 6 in the contempt petitions and punished the appellants for committing contempt, while holding the appellants guilty of contempt the learned Judge directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as penalty for their wilful disobedience of the order of Court dated 26.11.2021. The learned Single Judge also cancelled all the resolutions dated 27.11.2021, observing that the first respondent Bishop had convened the meeting without any power. Challenging the order in the two contempt petitions independently filed by the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4, the above contempt appeals have been preferred.

10.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the Bishop, has advanced elaborate arguments to convince this Court that the appellants have not committed any contempt by passing the resolutions dated 27.11.2021. It is to be seen in the memorandum of the grounds that every arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge in C.M.A, were again raised by them in the memorandum of the appeal in the contempt appeals.  The order of  the learned Single Judge in C.M.A was interpreted in a manner authorising the Bishop to redo the exercise with the approval of Church

Council. When this Court put a specific question to the Senior Counsel as to how the Bishop could convene the Church Council meeting on 27.11.2021, the learned Senior Council was unable to convince this Court pointing out the authority or source of power from the rules authorizing the Bishop to convene the meeting on 27.11.2021 especially after the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge on 26.11.2022. Further, this Court making an observation regarding the contumacious conduct of the appellants, there was a change in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Isaac Mohanlal and other counsels except the Senior Counsel viz., T.V.Ramanujam, who supported the meeting dated 27.11.2021 by saying that the Bishop and others were forced to convene the meeting on 27.11.2021, by their attitude of the petitioners in the contempt petitions questioning the status of Bishop. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, appeared on behalf of Mr.S.Sankar, counsel on record for the appellant in the contempt appeal in Cont.A(MD).No.6 of 2022.

11.The learned Senior Counsel then urged that there is no direction or

order in C.M.A as the learned Judge has simply allowed the C.M.A. Further the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there are factual mistakes in the order passed in C.M.A and that some of the observations are made beyond the scope of the interim application and the C.M.A. He repeatedly submitted that the contempt petitioners have acted in utter disobedience of the directions of this Court in para No.18 of the order in C.M.A and contrary to the TELC Rules by showing a letter dated 26.11.2021 followed by the meeting on 18.12.2021. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted the findings of the learned Judge that the office of the Bishop has come to an end on 14.11.2021 ignoring that it could be decided only in the suit after recording oral and documentary evidence and that the findings of the learned Judge would amount to review of the order passed in C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021 which is not permissible in law in the contempt jurisdiction.

12.After elaborate arguments of the learned Senior counsels viz., Mr.Isaac Mohanlal and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, on merits of the matter, taking a definite stand justifying the resolution dated 27.11.2021,  the counsels have submitted that the appellants have not committed any contempt as their intention was to implement the direction of Court. In other words, it was suggested that the meeting on 27.11.2021 itself was to comply with the direction of this Court and not to disobey. Finding that the arguments are not accepted and this Court observed that the conduct of the appellants convening the meeting on 27.11.2021 is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the order of this Court and it is an act with an intention to disobey the direction of this

Court, the learned Senior Counsel has requested this Court to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants and discharge them from contempt by allowing the appeals.

13.On the question as to whether the appellants have committed an

act of contempt by wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 26.11.2021 in C.M.A.No.619 of 2021, this Court is of the firm view that all the appellants have committed an act of wilful disobedience of the direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court.  As pointed out earlier in paragraph No.18 of the order in C.M.A, it is unambiguous that the respondents are restrained from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs as members and office bearers of Church council for the Teriannum 2019-2022 and to carry out duties as per Rules either by issuing circular or letter or in any manner what so ever till the disposal of the suit. The Court has granted an order of injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs as members and office bearers of the Church Council till the disposal of the suit. The appellants have convened the meeting on the next day ie., on

26.07.2022 even before getting a copy of the order.

14.By the resolution passed by the Church Council on 27.11.2021

and the communications dated 27.11.2021 addressed to all the Bishops, candidates, District Chairman and the various functionaries of the TELC, the appellants have rendered the order passed by the learned single judge ineffective by giving a false interpretation. The resolution dated 27.11.2021 is a daring attempt to remove the basis of the order holding that the Bishop has no power to assume the power of Secretary without the approval of the Church Council. Therefore, this Court is of the view that intention and object behind convening of meeting on 27.11.2021 is obvious and the conduct of appellant is not only contumacious but also to send a message to the parties to the lis that the Bishop has such a plenary power to render the Court order unworkable.

15.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants has relied upon few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the preposition that unconditional apology tendered by the appellants before the learned Single Judge and before this Court in Contempt Appeals by way of separate affidavits may be accepted and the appellants may be discharged from the contempt.

16.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, learned counsel appearing for some of the

respondents, has produced before this Court that a letter dated 21.05.2022 issued by the Bishop to the Chief Manager to Indian Overseas Bank in Tiruchirappalli. The content of the letter is required to be reproduced,

“ We are writing to your Bank with above cited references and to the above mentioned subject for your immediate attention.

The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church hereafter called as TELC in short form is a society which was incorporated in the year 1919 in 1860 Central Act of India. Its Central Administrative office and Treasury are located in Tranquebar House, Melaputhur, Tiruchirappali – 1. TELC established its Churches, Schools,

Colleges, Technical Institutitons, Hospitals, Hostels, Homes,

Orphanages across the South India namely Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra, Karnataka and Pondicherry since then the entire administration of TELC has been only in accordance with Church Rule as strict mandatory.

In fact, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in MA 907 of 2019 in SLP No. 13243 of 2017 dated 17.09.2019 pronounced clearly as ‘Insofar as running of the affairs of the church is concerned that will naturally be in accordance with the Rules’ and as well the same has been repeatedly pronounced in the

Interim Order of Madras High Court – Madurai Bench in CMA (MD) No 619 of 2021.

The Bank A/C of TELC is not an individual A/C and it is an A/C of the Society, governed by its Rules (Church Rules), the operation of the A/C is based on the Church Rules which provide for an administration of the Church. The A/C of TELC is not only for the General Administration purpose and it is primarily daily livelihood of many of the Poor Children, Old aged and orphans. Infact Bank A/C should be opened and operated in accordance with Church Rule only and it is for the bank to honor the Rule to help the society and its organizations for its smooth operations.

The Bishop/President TELC has absorbed and abided the above reference court order of Madras High Court – Madurai bench in CMA (MD) NO. 619 OF 2021 dated 26.11.2021 (Copies are enclosed herein) and as well followed the Church Rule within his capacity as Bishop/President TELC. As per the written request dated 26.11.2021 by the majority of the Church Council members (Copies are enclosed herein), the Church Council meeting was convened dated 27.11.2022 and one of the Church Council members Mr. R. Thangapalam was elected as the new Church Council Secretary TELC as per Church Rule (Copies are enclosed herein), since then all administration of the TELC including Bank transactions have been operated as per the Church Rules and within the parameters of the said court order of Madras High Court – Madurai Bench in CMA (MD) No 619 of 2021 dated 26.11.2021 and since then all proceedings and circulars of the Church Council of TELC have been circulated only by the Rt.Rev. D. Daniel Jayaraj, the Bishop/President TELC and Mr. R. Thangapalam, the Secretary Church Council TELC as the only authorized persons in TELC with the approval of the Church Council (Copies are enclosed herein).

In the subsequent Church Council meetings held on02.12.2021, the majority of the Church Council resolved and passed resolutions for the continuation of Mr. S.R. Andrews Ruben as the Treasurer of TELC in order to continue operating all Bank Accounts of TELC along with Rt. Rev. D. Daniel Jeyaraj the

Bishop/President TELC as usual as per the Church Rule. (Copies are enclosed herein)

The Bank accounts should be open and operated only by the Bishop/President TELC as the sole custodian of Bank accounts of TELC along with Treasurer TELC as per Church Rule 128(6) as it says in Duties and Responsibilities of the Bishop/President TELC ‘to be the custodian of the Bank accounts and to sign the cheques on requisition from the Treasury, along with the Treasurer’(Copies are enclosed herein) therefore apart from these two no one is authorized to open and operate any of the Bank accounts in the name of TELC in any circumstances (copies of the Rules are enclosed herein)

Further, there were two contempt petitions 1896 & 1897 of

2021 along with two Sub-Applications 24 & 25 of 2022 filed by one

Mr. Maher Antony the former secretary Church Council and Madras High Court – Madurai Bench passed orders with certain directions in the said above two contempt petitions dated 29.04.2022 and further dismissed the said two Sub – Applications 24 and 25 of 2022 along with its requested reliefs of appointment of Administrator to conduct Bishop election and to supervise the Church Council till O.S. 253 of 2020 suit is disposed and further directed that all other matters shall be decided only in Trial in the original suit of O.S. 253 of 2020 in 1^st Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

Consequently, the Bishop/President TELC along with three Church Council members filed contempt Appeals 4230/22 and 4213/22 against the order of Hon’ble Single Learned Judge in both

Contempt Petitions 1896 & 1897 of 2021 in Division Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Bench (Vacation Court) which were allowed, and it came for argument on 06.05.2022, after arguments, the Judges posted the matter to first week of June 2022, therefore the order issued in contempt petitions 1896 and 1897  of 2021 are under appeal and pending for arguments and disposal in the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court – Madurai Bench, it means no one should be requested for any towards and for administration of TELC more especially for operation of TELC bank accounts  in any of the banks by any of the parties till the said Contempt appeals 4230/22 and 4231/22 in the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court – Madurai bench are disposed.

In meantime the Bishop/President TELC has filed a Writ

Petition (MD) No. 4645 of 2022 in Hon’ble Madras High Court – Madurai Bench exclusively for operations of bank accounts of TELC in which the said Mr. Maher Antony and the Banks in where TELC has its bank accounts are also parties, and the writ petition is not been disposed yet and is under trial, therefore unless the said writ petition is disposed the bank accounts of TELC in any banks cannot be operated by any of the parties of the said writ petition.

Now, we have come to know that Mr. Maher Antony, his Church Council members and their illegally appointed office bearers have approached to your office and forced you to unfreeze the Bank accounts of TELC which is incorrect and unlawful and against Court proceedings and the Church Rules, if they are allowed to operate the bank accounts of TELC in your bank it will certainly result grave interruptions in the administration of TELC and will bring severe confusions among the congregation of TELC and further will incur heavy loss and huge damages due to which you may be held liable.

Therefore, you are hereby asked to maintain all bank accounts of TELC in your esteemed bank remain closed and kept frozen till all said litigations in both 1^st Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli and Madras High Court – Madurai Bench are disposed, otherwise we may take serious legal action against your Bank immediately.

Hope good sense will prevail upon the Bank authorities in

the interest of Justice, our Church and its Rules.”

This Court has examined the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, in the light of the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel and the letter dated 21.05.2022.

17.The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DINABANDHU SAHU-vs-THE STATE OF ORISSA, reported in (1972)4 SCC 761. After referring to the statement expressing the apology in the following lines:

“My client had already expressed that the

misunderstandings which caused them to file the petition the subject matter of the contempt proceedings had been removed by the explanation given by the learned Chief Justice and stated that if they had known this, they would never have written it. In view of this they had also asked for the forgiveness of the Court out of its generosity. I have, therefore, no hesitation at all in offering unconditional apology on their behalf for having written the petition. On behalf my clients, I again repeat that and tender an unqualified apology for presenting the petition.“ the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“The apology tendered was not merely an apology but was something more than an apology because what was asked of the Court out of its generosity was forgiveness; that this was sincerely meant is amply demonstrated by its being repeated again before us We think that the contempt if any has been certainly purged in the manner in which the apology was given and the matter should have been set at rest there. It is no part of the judicial function to be vindictive or allow any personal or other considerations to enter in the discharge of its functions and since both the learned Chief Justice and Misra, J. would have been prepared to accept that apology if it was given by the Appellants themselves and in writing and since Mr. Chari said that the Appellants would have been prepared to give such an apology in writing, if that was the only thing that was required and even now are ready and willing to do so we feel that the apology tendered on their behalf by their Senior Advocate can well be accepted and the proceedings closed.”

18.In the case of M.Y.Shareef and another-vs-Hon’ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and others, reported in (S)A.I.R 1955 S.C. 19(Vol.42, C.N.6). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“Every form of defence in a contempt case cannot be

regarded as an act of contumacy. It depends on the circumstances of each case and on the general impression about a particular rule of ethics amongst the members of the profession. The learned Judges, as already said, have themselves said that such an impression was prevalent since along time amongst a section of the Bar in Nagpur. It was thus necessary to have that question settled and any effort on the part of these two learned counsel to have that point settled cannot be regarded as contumacy or a circumstance which aggravates the contempt. We think that the expression of regret in the alternative in this case should not have been ignored but should have been given due consideration. It was made in the earliest written statement submitted by the counsel and cited above. Once however the High Court found that they were guilty of contempt, they would have been well advised to tender an unqualified apology to that Court forthwith. But perhaps they were still under the delusion that they were right and the Court was in error, and that by coming to this Court they might be able to have the q uestion of principle settled as they contended. As soon as we indicated to the learned counsel that they were in error, they and their counsel immediately tendered an unqualified apology which, as already indicated, was repeated again in absolute terms at the second hearing. We have not been able to appreciate why the learned Judges of the High Court should have doubted the genuineness of this apology.“

19.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon few

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court submitted that the power of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution cannot be limited, except to inflict the new type of punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of T.SUDHAKARPRASAD-VS-GOVT. OF A.P.AND OTHERS,  reported in (2001)1SCC 516. This judgment has no

relevance in the present context.

20.He also placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case

of Pravin C.Shah-v-K.A.Mohd.Ali and another, reported in (2001)8 SCC 650. This judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is more against the point that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel than to support his contention to discharge the appellant from contempt. The issue whether an advocate, who was punished for contempt of Court can appear thereafter as a counsel in the Court, unless he purges himself of such contempt and what is the way he can purge himself of such contempt came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. An advocate practising mostly in the Sub-ordinate Courts within Ernakulam District of Kerala State, was hauled up for contempt of Court on two successive occasions. The High Court found the advocate guilty of contempt in both the cases and convicted him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him in one case to a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in the second case. When the advocate challenged the conviction and sentence imposed on him, he did not succeed in the Supreme Court except getting the fine of Rs.2,000/-in one case deleted.  The Hon’ble

Supreme Court did not accept his apology. Further observed as follows:

“We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at

this belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct under out plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby.”

Thereafter, the Bar Council of Kerala initiated disciplinary proceedings against the advocate and finally imposed a punishment on him debarring him from “acting or pleading any Court till he gets himself purged of the contempt of

Court by an order of the appropriate Court”. Challenging the order of the State

Bar Council of Kerala, the advocate filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India and the order was set aside by the Bar Council of India.  When the order passed by the Bar Council of India was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal after holding that the apology tendered before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on earlier occasion was rejected and the order admonishing the advocate under the plenary powers under the Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has purged the advocate on contempt. This Court is unable to find any assistance from the said judgment, in favour of the appellants as the present case is entirely different.

21.The learned Senior Counsel, while making a submission that this Court can pass appropriate orders to appoint Administrator for administration as well as for conducting election for the Triennium 2022-2025, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of All Bengal Excise Licensees’ Association-vs-Raghabendra Singh and Others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 374. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the similar circumstances and held that the respondents 1 to 4 have committed an act of contempt as observed as follows:

“25.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that an injunction order was passed on 04.01.2005 and on subsequent extension is still subsisting. Respondent Nos.1-4 admittedly are highly qualified and highly placed government officials. Admittedly, by advocate’s letter dated 15.03.2005, it was pointed out to them that the injunction order dated 04.01.2005 and its subsequent extensions are still subsisting. They have also acknowledged the receipt of the communication dated 15.03.2005. Under such circumstances, the High Court is not justified in holding that the highly qualified and well placed government officials did not understand the implication and/or consequence of prohibitory order in an independent proceedings and by sheer mis-conception though that there is no bar to issue excise licenses as was held by the learned Judge in the impugned order.

26.This Court can only say it is rather unfortunate that such officers who are not capable of or not able to understand the implication of the prohibitory orders passed by the High Court should be allowed to hold such high offices. During the course of the hearing of the contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable the respondent to consider whether the contemnors was prepared to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the Court’s orders and on such adjourned date, the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. Under such circumstances, the plea of mistake of understanding the order cannot at all be accepted. Likewise, the High Court also was not justified in not directing the contemnors to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the solemn orders passed by the very same Judge and in view of the clear finding of the Court that they had acted in clear violation of the said interim order made by the High Court.

27.Even assuming that there was any scope for bona fide misunderstanding on the part of the respondents, once it was found that the respondent had disobeyed the specific order passed earlier by the Court, the High Court should have directed the contemnors to undo the wrong committed by them which was done in clear breach of the order of the Court by restoring the status quo ante by canceling the lottery wrongfully held by them. The learned Judge found that the respondent-contemnors had held the lottery in violation of the Court’s order and the results of the said lottery should not be permitted to take effect and should be treated as unlawful and invalid for the purpose of grant of license. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law which cannot be violated by the executive authority either deliberately or unwittingly should have set aside the lottery held and should not have allowed the respondents to gain a wrongful advantage thereby.

28.In our opinion, a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof. By pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retaining the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in contumacious disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good. In our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High court is not sustainable in law and should not be allowed to operate as a precedent and the wrong perpetrated by the respondent-contemnors in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good.

29.The High Court has committed a grievous error of law in holding that failure to understand the implication and consequences of the order passed by the High Court by highly placed government officers cannot be construed as an act of contempt. The High Court has failed to understand that the highly educated and highly placed government officials have competent legal advisors and it was not open to them to allege and contend that the respondent-contemnors did not understand the implication of the order dated 04.01.2005. In our opinion, such officers are required to be dealt with effectively to uphold the dignity of the High Court and the efficiency of the system itself.“

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter following the judgment, in

the case of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Vs-SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY(P) LTD., & ANOTHER, reported in (1996)4 SCC 622 and few other judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD. VS. S.SUPPIAH AND OTHERS  reported in AIR 1975 (M) 270, held as follows:

“38.In the instant case, the respondents have conducted the auction quite contrary to and in violation of an injunction order passed by the High Court. Courts have held in a catena of decisions that where in violation of a restraint order or an injunction order against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the prepetuation of the wrong doing. In our opinion, the inherent power will not only be available under Section 151 CPC, as available to us in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice and public interest.”

23.It is well settled principle that the apology tendered should

impress the Court to be genuine and sincere. If the Court on being impressed of the genuineness, accepts the apology, then it could be said that the contemnor has purged himself of the guilt. A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Mulk Rajvs-State of Punjab, made the following observations:

“9.Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellant’s expression of apology ‘without any further word’. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go away with impunity after having committed gross contempt”.

24.The other counsels also had relied upon a few judgments for the

following preposition:

(i)The contempt jurisdiction is not to be invoked or allowed to be

invoked to enable the appellants to wreak personal vengeance against the alleged contemnors.

(ii)When two views are possible element of wilfulness, Vanishes as it

involves a mental element and therefore, the Court in such cases, what is required proof beyond reasonable doubt may not hold a person guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order.

25.This Court has no hesitation to accept the principles in every

judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel and other counsels appearing for the appellants. However, this Court is unable to find any merit in the present case to allow the appeal, as the conduct of the appellants in this case is wilful. There is no ambiguity in the order of the learned Single Judge, while allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021 and granting interim order. The manner in which the meeting of Church council was convened on 27.11.2021 and the minutes of the meeting by passing several resolutions would certainly reveal that the intention is deliberate to render the order of this Court on merits worth nothing more than a piece of paper. From 27.11.2021 all the appellants particularly, the Bishop, is maintaining his stand on the basis of such illegal meeting of church council. By virtue of the resolution dated 27.11.2021, the Church Council with the elected Secretary could not function. It is admitted that the Secretary of the Church Council who obtained an order of injunction was never allowed to function as the Secretary as the remaining members, who joined with him could not constitute the quorum.  Therefore, this Court is unable to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge punishing the appellants for committing contempt by imposing a fine amount of Rs.2,000/-.

26.Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M.Y.Shareef-

vs-Hon’ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court, has held that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of the contenmors’ offence. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M.B.Sanghi, Advocate-vs-High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has observed that when the apology was hollow and there was no remorse or regret and it was only a device to escape the rigour of law, the Court cannot accept the apology.

27.For all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the

apology is not a heart-felt one, as it is not intended to express the real contriteness. While considering the case on merits, the contumacious conduct of some of the members of the Church council was noticed earlier by this Court.  The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian, (as then he was) had occasion to consider similar instance of contempt by the members of the Church Council in relation to the administration of the institution. From the

Judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2010 in C.R.P(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 and Cont.P(MD)Nos.643 and 681 of 2010.  However, in the larger interest of the administration of the Society further directions were issued by appointing Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.Kanakaraj(Retd.) as the Administrator to control the affairs of Church Council and to effect a temporary truce between two rival groups.

28.All the parties filed an affidavit before this Court for appointment

of an Administrator to conduct the election for the post of Bishop, who retired on 14.01.2021 and the Church Council for which the tenure ends on 10.09.2022. Accordingly, some of the parties have also suggested the names of the retired Hon’ble Judges of this Court to be appointed as administrator. A memo was filed by the second respondent, who is the Secretary of the Church Council, who obtained the interim order from this Court in C.M.A(MD)No.619 of 2021. It is brought to the notice that some of the members of the Church Council had changed sides and as a result, the Church Council under the Secretaryship of the petitioner in the contempt petition has issued a election notification, dated 03.06.2022. However, in the same memo, the learned counsel for the second respondent has also expressed his consent for appointing a retired Judge of this Court as administrator, as it was done earlier to conduct the election of Bishop/President as well as the Election for Church Council for the Triennium 2022-2025 as per the Election notification issued by the Church Council. Since this Court find the name of the Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, (Retd.,) as common in the affidavit or memo filed by the counsels representing various parties, Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Paul Vasanthakumar,(Retd.,) is appointed as Administrator to act as Administrator to conduct the election of Bishop/President and the Church Council as per the rules. The Hon’ble Administrator will hold the same power to act as an Administrator of TELC to conduct election of Bishop as well as the church council which are in incidental to the power as it was conferred on such Administrator appointed by this Court earlier. The Administrator shall immediately take over the entire Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church administration including all the Educational Institutions, Homes and Orphanages from the date of the appointment made by this Court. All the meeting of Church council shall be held under the supervision of the Administrator. If there are any conflicting opinion, the Administrator shall find out what is good for the institution and take appropriate decision. His decision shall be binding on the TELC. The Administrator shall conduct the election for the post of Bishop and the Church Council and put the newly elected office bearers in office including the Bishop as and when the election is over. The Administrator may appoint one or more secretarial staff to assist him in the administration and the staff appointed by the Administrator shall act only as per the direction of the Administrator and they shall function till the Administrator demit his office, after the election of Bishop and the members of the office bearers of Church council. The administrator is permitted to spend all the expenditure towards the conduct of Election and the incidental expenses, directly from the funds of TELC. The other incidental expenses that may be incurred by the administrator himself in connection with his official works till the Administrator demits his office shall be reimbursed by TELC. The administrator shall have all the powers to effectively implement the directions pursuant to the order of this Court and he is permitted to approach this Court for suitable direction, in case of any doubt. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the remuneration for the previous Administrator as Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fifty thousand only) per month, apart from the expenses, the Administrator is also entitled to the same remuneration till he demits his office.

29.It is now reported to this Court that the appellants in all the cases

have remitted the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and therefore, the appellants are purged of contempt accepting the payment of fine,  pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge.

30.With the above directions, these Contempt Appeals are disposed

1. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(S.S.S.R.J.,)       (S.S.Y.J.,)

08.08.2022

Index:Yes/No

Internet:yes

Ns

S.S. SUNDAR, J., and

S.SRIMATHY,J.,

Ns

Cont.P(MD)Nos.3 to 10 of 2022

08.08.2022